[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1259053080.6081.2.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:58:00 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: newidle balancing in NUMA domain?
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 09:40 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 07:53 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 04:53:37PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 16:29 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > >
> > > > So basically about the least well performing or scalable possible
> > > > software architecture. This is exactly the wrong thing to optimise
> > > > for, guys.
> > >
> > > Hm. Isn't fork/exec our daily bread?
> >
> > No. Not for handing out tiny chunks of work and attempting to do
> > them in parallel. There is this thing called Amdahl's law, and if
> > you write a parallel program that wantonly uses the heaviest
> > possible primitives in its serial sections, then it doesn't deserve
> > to go fast.
>
> OK by me. A bit if idle time for kbuild is easily cured with telling
> make to emit more jobs, so there's enough little jobs to go around.
>
> If x264 is declared dainbramaged, that's fine with me too.
(P.S. I don't want to have to explain to users of any such thread happy
applications why they suck rocks under Linux though)
--
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