[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1260829283.8023.124.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:21:23 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com
Cc: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] sched: Scale the nohz_tracker logic by making it
per NUMA node
On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 17:27 -0800, venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com wrote:
> Having one idle CPU doing the rebalancing for all the idle CPUs in
> nohz mode does not scale well with increasing number of cores and
> sockets. Make the nohz_tracker per NUMA node. This results in multiple
> idle load balancing happening at NUMA node level and idle load balancer
> only does the rebalance domain among all the other nohz CPUs in that
> NUMA node.
>
> This addresses the below problem with the current nohz ilb logic
> * The lone balancer may end up spending a lot of time doing the
> * balancing on
> behalf of nohz CPUs, especially with increasing number of sockets and
> cores in the platform.
If the purpose is to keep sockets idle, doing things per node doesn't
seem like a fine plan, since we're having nodes <= socket machines these
days.
--
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