[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1258977045.4531.317.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:50:45 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: newidle balancing in NUMA domain?
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 12:43 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:36:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > IIRC this was kbuild and other spreading workloads that want this.
> >
> > the newidle_idx=0 thing is because I frequently saw it make funny
> > balance decisions based on old load numbers, like f_b_g() selecting a
> > group that didn't even have tasks in anymore.
>
> Well it is just a damping factor on runqueue flucturations. If the
> group recently had load then the point of the idx is to account
> for this. On the other hand, if we have other groups that are also
> above the idx damped average, it would make sense to use them
> instead. (ie. cull source groups with no pullable tasks).
Right, thing is, I'm still catching up from being gone, and haven't
actually read and tought through the whole rate-limiting thing :-(
If you see a better way to accomplish things, please holler.
> > We went without newidle for a while, but then people started complaining
> > about that kbuild time, and there is a x264 encoder thing that looses
> > tons of throughput.
>
> So... these were due to what? Other changes in domains balancing?
> Changes in CFS? Something else? Or were they comparisons versus
> other operating systems?
Comparison to Con's latest single-rq spread like there's no cache
affinity BFS thing.
--
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