![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Nakajima, Jun wrote: >BTW, Nick, does your SMT scheduler have "idle package prioritization" >which chooses an idle logical processor with the other local processor >idle if any (rather than just an idle processor with other local >processor running at full speed), when the scheduler requires an idle >local processor? That would prevent situations like two logical >processors run at full speed in the same processor package, with the >other processor package(s) idle in a same processor package(s). I >haven't reviewed your latest patch closely, and that is the one of the >things I want to do during the holidays. > Yep, sched_balance_wake wakes to idle siblings if your domain has SD_FLAG_WAKE and idle_balance tries pulling tasks from any domain with SD_FLAG_NEWIDLE set if we're just about to become idle. > >One question. Why did you remove SD_FLAG_IDLE flag from cpu_domain >initialization in the w27 patch? We've been seeing some performance >degradation with w27, compared to w26. > I reworked things to not require this hopefully. w26 was quite broken with respect to the active balancing stuff. One thing I did in w27 was accidently release the code with cache_hot_time for the SMT domain set to 1ms instead of 0 in w26, so SD_FLAG_NEWIDLE is sometimes not allowed to pull a ready-to-run task off a sibling... I haven't been able to do a great deal of performance tuning though, there is probably quite a bit of room for improvement. - 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 12:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||