![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Hi Ingo, On Monday 03 February 2003 19:23, Ingo Molnar wrote: > -#define > CAN_MIGRATE_TASK(p,rq,this_cpu) \ > - ((jiffies - (p)->sleep_timestamp > cache_decay_ticks) && \ > - !task_running(rq, p) && \ > - ((p)->cpus_allowed & (1UL << (this_cpu)))) +#define > CAN_MIGRATE_TASK(p,rq,cpu) \ > + ((idle || (jiffies - (p)->last_run > cache_decay_ticks)) && \ > + !task_running(p) && task_allowed(p, cpu)) at least for NUMA systems this is too aggressive (though I believe normal SMP systems could be hurt, too). The problem: freshly forked tasks are stolen by idle cpus on the same node before they exec. This actually disables the sched_balance_exec() mechanism as the tasks to be balanced already run alone on other CPUs. Which means: the whole benefit of having balanced nodes (maximize the memory bandwidth) is gone. The change below is less aggressive but in the same philosophy. Could you please take it instead? > CAN_MIGRATE_TASK(p,rq,cpu) \ > + ((jiffies - (p)->last_run > (cache_decay_ticks >> idle)) && \ > + !task_running(p) && task_allowed(p, cpu)) Regards, Erich - 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 12:32 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||