[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4540EC84.8070302@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 03:12:36 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC: 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 5/5] Only call rebalance_domains when needed from scheduler_tick
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>
>>>Call rebalance_domains from a tasklet with interrupt enabled.
>>>Only call it when one of the sched domains is to be rebalanced.
>>>The jiffies when the next balancing action is to take place is
>>>kept in a per cpu variable next_balance.
>>
>>sched-domains was supposed to be able to build a whacky topology
>>so you didn't have to take the occasional big latency hit when
>>scanning 512 CPUs...
>
>
> How is that supposed to work? The load calculations will be off
> in that case and also the load balancing algorithm wont work anymore.
> This is going to be a pretty significant rework of how the scheduler
> works but given the problems with pinned tasks... maybe that is
> necessary?
> duler?
What will the problem be? Sure it may pull tasks fom one group to
another when both could actually be pulling from a third, but it
the load balancing algorithm should work fine and not require any
rework.
--
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