[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] HT scheduler, sched-2.5.68-B2
    > Sorry if I misunderstand, but if HT is present, I would think that you
    > would want to start the child of a fork on the same runqueue, because the
    > cache is loaded, and to run the child first because in many cases the
    > child will do and exac. At that point it is probable that the exec'd
    > process run on another CPU would leave the cache useful to the parent.
    > I fully admit that this is "seems to me" rather than measured, but
    > protecting the cache is certainly a good thing in general.

    We don't do balance on exec for SMP. I think we should ;-)
    AFAIK, fork always stays on the same runqueue anyway.

    >> The key is that we want to agressively steal when
    >> nr_active(remote) - nr_active(idle) > 1 ... not > 0.
    >> This will implicitly *never* happen on non HT machines, so it seems
    >> like a nice algorithm ... ?
    > Is it really that simple?

    Well, *I* think so (obviously) ;-)
    Feel free to poke holes in the argument ...


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:35    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean