[Click] SortedTaskSched

[Giovanni Tusa]

Ok. Thanks.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eddie Kohler" <kohler at cs.ucla.edu>
To: "Giovanni Tusa" <gtusa at diit.unict.it>
Cc: "Nikitas Liogkas" <nikitas at cs.ucla.edu>; <click at amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Click] SortedTaskSched


> Giovanni Tusa wrote:
> > Hi Eddie and Nikitas.
> > In the tests I have done with the old SortedTaskSched element, by
monitoring
> > the task assignment with the ThreadMonitor element, ...
>
> Hi Giovanni,
>
> You mean you aren't using BalancedThreadSched, the new version in Click
1.4?
> I'm sorry, but I can't support the old SortedTaskSched.  Please migrate to
1.4
> as soon as you can.  Alternately maybe someone else on the list will help.
>
> Eddie
>
>
> I sometimes observe some
> > strange behaviors. It seems that the assignment of the tasks among the
CPUs,
> > in order to balance the load, sometimes does not corresponds to the
number
> > of
> > the calculated CPU cycles.
> > For example, if I have:
> >
> >     pd0::PollDevice(eth0);
> >     pd1::PollDevice(eth1);
> >     .................................
> >     td0::ToDevice(eth0);
> >     td1::ToDevice(eth1);
> >
> > I can observe a situation like this:
> > chatter: 58869: pd0, cycles 22874, on 0
> >
> > chatter: 58869: td0, cycles 8000, on 0
> >
> > chatter: 58869: pd1, cycles 22561, on 1
> >
> > chatter: 58869: td1, cycles 7369, on 1
> >
> > instead of : pd0 and td1 on 0
> >                  pd1 and td0 on 1
> >
> > Are there some other mechanisms which can take place during the
rebalancing
> > and
> > the CPU cycles calculation?
> > Moreover, which are the main differences in the implementation of the
new
> > BalancedThreadSched element?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Giovanni
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Eddie Kohler" <kohler at cs.ucla.edu>
> > To: "Nikitas Liogkas" <nikitas at cs.ucla.edu>
> > Cc: "Giovanni Tusa" <gtusa at diit.unict.it>; <click at amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu>
> > Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 6:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Click] SortedTaskSched
> >
> >
> >
> >>Nikitas Liogkas wrote:
> >>
> >>>INCREASING just dictates in what order the tasks will be sorted
> >>>(increasing or decreasing) before the rebalancing takes place.
> >>
> >>Yes.  If INCREASING is true, then the load-balancer moves the most
> >
> > expensive
> >
> >>tasks first.  If it is false, the load-balancer moves the least
expensive
> >
> > tasks
> >
> >>first.
> >>
> >>Eddie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Eddie has recently rewritten that particular element, so it might be
> >
> > worth
> >
> >>>it to wait for a few days in order to try out the new implementation.
> >>>
> >>>nikitas
> >>>
> >>>On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Giovanni Tusa wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hi all,
> >>>>by using the SortedTaskSched element of SMP Click, in order to enable
> >
> > adaptive CPU scheduling in a Xeon dual processor machine,
> >
> >>>>I have noticed some change in my router performance.
> >>>>The question is that, while the meaning of the INTERVAL parameter is
> >
> > obvious, still I have some doubt about the meaning of the INCREASING
> > parameter.
> >
> >>>>Any advice will be very appreciated!
> >>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>click mailing list
> >>>>click at amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu
> >>>>https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>click mailing list
> >>>click at amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu
> >>>https://amsterdam.lcs.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/click
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>