[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070502100545.GA6857@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 12:05:45 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Peter Williams <pwil3058@...pond.net.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, caglar@...dus.org.tr,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...il.com>, Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>,
Zach Carter <linux@...hcarter.com>,
buddabrod <buddabrod@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] CFS scheduler, -v8
* Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> With -v7 I would run the n/n+1 test. Basically on a system with n
> cpus, I would run n+1 tasks and see how their load is distributed. I
> usually find that the last two tasks would get stuck on one CPU on the
> system and would get half the cpu time as their other peers. I think
> this issue has been around for long even before CFS. But while I was
> investigating that, I found that with -v8, all the n+1 tasks are stuck
> on the same cpu.
i believe this problem is specific to powerpc - load is distributed fine
on i686/x86_64 and your sched_debug shows a cpu_load[0] == 0 on CPU#2
which is 'impossible'. (I sent a few suggestions off-Cc about how to
debug this.)
Ingo
-
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