![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Martin J. Bligh wrote: >>>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. >> > >OK, but do you agree that the rate we rebalance things like 2 vs 1 should >be slower than the rate we rebalance 3 vs 1 ? Fairness is only relevant >over a long term imbalance anyway, so there should be a big damper on >"fairness only" rebalances. > > Well presently it happens at the same rate. This isn't bad though, because you just use the more conservative rate. Its probably not worth distinguishing the two cases. If a CPU becomes idle, it will attempt to balance immediately. >Moreover, as Rick pointed out, it's particularly futile over idle cpus ;-) > > I don't follow... - 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 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||