[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4540AACE.3010804@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:32:14 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: unlisted-recipients:; (no To-header on input)
CC: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>, akpm@...l.org,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Dave Chinner <dgc@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] Use next_balance instead of last_balance
Nick Piggin wrote:
> Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
>> Use next_balance instead of last_balance ...
>>
>> The cpu offset calculation in the sched_domains code makes it
>> difficult to
>> figure out when the next event is supposed to happen since we only keep
>> track of the last_balancing. We want to know when the next load balance
>> is supposed to occur.
>>
>> Move the cpu offset calculation into build_sched_domains(). Do the
>> setup of the staggered load balance schewduling when the sched domains
>> are initialized. That way we dont have to worry about it anymore later.
>>
>> This also in turn simplifies the load balancing time checks.
>
>
> OK. I think I made this overcomplex in order to cope with issues where
> offset can get skewed so if we're unlucky they might all get into synch
> ... but this new code isn't any worse than the old, and it is cheaper.
>
> So, Ack.
Actually, it is wrong, so nack.
You didn't take into account that balance_interval may have changed,
and so might the idle status.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists