Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sat, 07 Feb 2004 11:31:01 +1100 | | From | Nick Piggin <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Load balancing problem in 2.6.2-mm1 |
| |
Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>>Not sure how true that turns out to be in practice ... probably depends >>>heavily on both the workload (how heavily it's using the cache) and the >>>chip (larger caches have proportionately more to lose). >>> >>>As we go forward in time, cache warmth gets increasingly important, as >>>CPUs accelerate speeds quicker than memory. Cache sizes also get larger. >>>I'd really like us to be conservative here - the unfairness thing is >>>really hard to hit anyway - you need a static number of processes that >>>don't ever block on IO or anything. >>> >>Can we keep current behaviour default, and if arches want to >>override it they can? And if someone one day does testing to >>show it really isn't a good idea, then we can change the default. >> > >Well, that should be a pretty easy test to do. I'll try it. > >
OK, use the revision of Rick's patch I posted, and don't use CONFIG_SCHED_SMT because I think there is a problem with it.
Thanks Nick
- 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/
|  |