![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
> Good stuff, I just gave the patch a spin and things seem a little > calmer. However Im still seeing a lot of balancing going on within a > node. > > This is a clearly recognizable edge case, so I'll try drawing this up on > some paper and see if I can suggest another patch. There's no good reason > to move one lone process from a particular processor to another idle one. > > But it also approaches a question that's come up before: if you have 2 > tasks on processor A and 1 on processor B, do you move one from A to B? > One argument is that the two tasks on A will take twice as long as > the one on B if you do nothing. But another says that bouncing a task > around can't correct the overall imbalance and so is wasteful. I know > of benchmarks where both behaviors are considered important. Thoughts? It's the classic fairness vs throughput thing we've argued about before. Most workloads don't have that static a number of processes, but it probably does need to do it if the imbalance is persistent ... but much more reluctantly than normal balancing. See the patch I sent out a bit earlier to test it - that may be *too* extreme in the other direction, but it should confirm what's going on, at least. M. - 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 13:00 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||