lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Load balancing problem in 2.6.2-mm1


Martin J. Bligh wrote:

>> 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.
>
>

Yep. I've argued for fairness here, and that is presently what
we get. Between nodes the threshold should probably be higher
though.

-
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 14:00    [W:0.294 / U:0.836 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site