[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1185310691.7737.40.camel@tongli.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:58:11 -0700
From: "Li, Tong N" <tong.n.li@...el.com>
To: Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
Cc: Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com>, mingo@...e.hu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] scheduler: improve SMP fairness in CFS
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 16:39 -0400, Chris Snook wrote:
> Divining the intentions of the administrator is an AI-complete problem and we're
> not going to try to solve that in the kernel. An intelligent administrator
> could also allocate 50% of each CPU to a resource group containing all the
> *other* processes. Then, when the other processes are scheduled out, your
> single task will run on whichever CPU is idle. This will very quickly
> equilibrate to the scheduling ping-pong you seem to want. The scheduler
> deliberately avoids this kind of migration by default because it hurts cache and
> TLB performance, so if you want to override this very sane default behavior,
> you're going to have to explicitly configure it yourself.
>
Well, the admin wouldn't specifically ask for 50% of each CPU. He would
just allocate 50% of total CPU time---it's up to the scheduler to
fulfill that. If a task is entitled to one CPU, then it'll stay there
and have no migration. Migration occurs only if there's overload, in
which case I think you agree in your last email that the cache and TLB
impact is not an issue (at least in SMP).
tong
-
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