Re: patch to add option to set schedulers by percentage

Lukas Larsson <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lang.erlang.patches
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hello Steve,

Have you given any thoughts on what should happen if you chain multiple 
+SP commands? i.e.

erl +S 16:16 +SP 50:50 +SP 50:50

Our view right now is that this should give [8:8] and not [4:4] as it 
currently does in the patch.

Related to this we also do not think that the order to +S vs +SP 
commands should matter. i.e.

erl +S 16:16 +SP 50:50 +S 16:16

should give [8:8] and not [16:16].

What do you think? These things are for sure odd cases to think about, 
but if it is possible someone will for sure do it....

Lukas

On 21/08/13 15:45, Steve Vinoski wrote:
> For applications where measurements show enhanced performance from the 
> use of a non-default number of emulator scheduler threads, having to 
> accurately set the right number of scheduler threads across multiple 
> hosts each with different numbers of logical processors is difficult 
> because the erl +S option requires absolute numbers of scheduler 
> threads and scheduler threads online to be specified.
>
> To address this issue, this patch adds a +SP option to erl, similar to 
> the existing +S option but allowing the number of scheduler threads 
> and scheduler threads online to be set as percentages of logical 
> processors configured and logical processors available, respectively. 
> For example, "+SP 50:25" sets the number of scheduler threads to 50% 
> of the logical processors configured, and the number of scheduler 
> threads online to 25% of the logical processors available.
>
> https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/58
>
> --steve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-patches mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-patches

_______________________________________________
erlang-patches mailing list
[email protected]
http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-patches
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.