Re:The Linux Scheduler: A Decade of Wasted Cores
by kev009 on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @12:10PM
(#11573075)
It is standard practice when max throughput and/or latency are desired to pin. A scheduler provides convenience and automatic balancing in face of shifting workloads. If you have a fixed function system, it's just getting in the way.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Linux Scheduler: A Decade of Wasted Cores
by vonmoltke on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @12:18PM
(#11573146)
Pretty much. Our pinning varied by task. Some were pinned to sockets, some to cores, and some to specific hardware threads. That's what I meant by "other considerations"; we would have still been pinning threads even if the bugs in the article didn't exist. The bugs just made figuring out the best pinning scheme more difficult.
Re:The Linux Scheduler: A Decade of Wasted Cores
by wyldfire on Tuesday April 26, 2016 @05:01PM
(#11575590)
Yes and no. Depending on the complexity level of the solution it may make sense to at least widen the threads' affinity masks. It often makes sense to offer some degree of freedom to the scheduler.