linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] sched:Consider imbalance_pct when comparing loads in numa_has

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:39:13 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] sched:Consider imbalance_pct when comparing loads
 in numa_has_capacity

On 06/16/2015 07:56 AM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> This is consistent with all other load balancing instances where we
> absorb unfairness upto env->imbalance_pct. Absorbing unfairness upto
> env->imbalance_pct allows to pull and retain task to their preferred
> nodes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

How does this work with other workloads, eg.
single instance SPECjbb2005, or two SPECjbb2005
instances on a four node system?

Is the load still balanced evenly between nodes
with this patch?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/