public inbox for cygwin-developers@cygwin.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Geisert <mark@maxrnd.com>
To: cygwin-developers@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Implement sched_[gs]etaffinity()
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 08:44:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.63.1904260131370.45639@m0.truegem.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190417075712.GX3599@calimero.vinschen.de>

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 16 21:31, Mark Geisert wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>> On Apr 16 01:19, Mark Geisert wrote:
>>>>   Anybody know if one can
>>>> depend on the group membership of the first processor group to apply to all
>>>> groups?
>>>
>>> Maybe https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/p/?linkid=147914 helps?
>>>
>>> "If the number of logical processors exceeds the maximum group size,
>>>  Windows creates multiple groups by splitting the node into n groups,
>>>  where the first n-1 groups have capacities that are equal to the group
>>>  size."
>>
>> Great; thanks for that.
>>
>>> [...]
>>> Therefore:
>>>
>>>  WORD cpu_group = cpu_number / num_cpu_per_group;
>>>  KAFFINITY cpu_mask = 1L << (cpu_number % num_cpu_per_group);
>>>
>>> That also means the transposition between the groupless linux system
>>> and the WIndows system is fairly easy.
>>
>> Yes, dealing with an array of unsigned longs vs bitblt ops FTW.

I've been doing research to more fully understand the non-symmetric API 
for Windows affinity ops.  I came across a non-MS document online that 
discusses affinity on Windows with >64 CPUs.  The author works on "Process 
Lasso", a product that attempts to balance performance of apps across 
CPUs.

Anyway, he says processors are divided evenly among groups.  One reason 
for this is that Windows allocates new processes round-robin among the 
processor groups.  This won't balance properly if some groups have more 
processors than other groups.  Here's a link to the doc:
https://bitsum.com/general/the-64-core-threshold-processor-groups-and-windows/

I'm not trying to muddy the waters, I'm just trying to figure out if there 
are different processor group assignment methods for different kinds of 
systems, SMP vs NUMA for instance.

I don't think the code I've got is robust enough to submit yet.  I suppose 
I could ship what should work, i.e., single-group processes and threads 
and just return ENOSYS for multi-group ops.  Or just hold off 'til done.

..mark

  reply	other threads:[~2019-04-26  8:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-04-11  4:21 Mark Geisert
2019-04-11  8:26 ` Corinna Vinschen
2019-04-11  8:38   ` Corinna Vinschen
2019-04-11 20:52     ` Mark Geisert
2019-04-12  7:46       ` Corinna Vinschen
2019-04-16  8:19         ` Mark Geisert
2019-04-16 10:45           ` Corinna Vinschen
2019-04-17  4:31             ` Mark Geisert
2019-04-17  7:57               ` Corinna Vinschen
2019-04-26  8:44                 ` Mark Geisert [this message]
2019-04-26  8:53                   ` Corinna Vinschen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.BSF.4.63.1904260131370.45639@m0.truegem.net \
    --to=mark@maxrnd.com \
    --cc=cygwin-developers@cygwin.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).