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:

>>>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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans