[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070618173558.GA17865@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:05:58 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dinakar Guniguntala <dino@...ibm.com>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, pwil3058@...pond.net.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: v2.6.21.4-rt11
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:54:18AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> The nodes-level domain looks for internode balances between up to 16
> nodes. It is not restricted to a single node.
I was mostly speaking with the example system in mind (4-node 4-cpu
box), but yes, node-level domain does look for imbalance across max 16
nodes as you mention.
Both node and all-node domains don't have SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE set, which
means idle_balance() will stop looking for imbalance beyonds its own
node. Based on the observed balance within its own node, IMO,
idle_balance() should not cause ->next_balance to be reset.
--
Regards,
vatsa
-
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