lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Dec]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Linux 2.4.17-pre5
    On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Mike Kravetz wrote:

    > On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 04:24:59PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
    > > I'm currently using the following rule in wake up
    > >
    > > if(current->mm->runnable > 0) /* One already running ? */
    > > cpu = current->mm->last_cpu;
    > > else
    > > cpu = idle_cpu();
    > > else
    > > cpu = cpu_num[fast_fl1(runnable_set)]
    > >
    > > that is
    > > If we are running threads with this mm on a cpu throw them at the
    > > same core
    > > If there is an idle CPU use it
    > > Take the mask of currently executing priority levels, find the last
    > > set bit (lowest pri) being executed, and look up a cpu running at
    > > that priority
    > >
    > > Then the idle stealing code will do the rest of the balancing, but at least
    > > it converges towards each mm living on one cpu core.
    >
    > This implies that the idle loop will poll looking for work to do.
    > Is that correct? Davide's scheduler also does this. I believe
    > the current default idle loop (at least for i386) does as little
    > as possible and stops execting instructions. Comments in the code
    > mention power consumption. Should we be concerned with this?

    My idea is not to poll ( due energy issues ) but to wake up idles (
    kernel/timer.c ) at every timer tick to let them monitor the overall
    balancing status.




    - Davide


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:14    [W:0.021 / U:9.676 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site