![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > >>>This works much better, but wildly varying (my tests go from 2.8xCPU to >>>~3.8x CPU for 4 CPUs. 2,3 CPU cases are ok). A bit more consistent >>>results would be better though. >> >>Oh good, thanks Ingo. Andi you probably want to lower your minimum >>balance time too then, and maybe try with an even lower maximum. Maybe >>reduce cache_hot_time a bit too. > > > i dont think we want to balance with that high of a frequency on NUMA > Opteron. These tunes were for testing only. > I guess not. Andi says he wants it more like UMA balancing though... > i'm dusting off the balance-on-clone patch right now, that should be the > correct solution. It is based on a find_idlest_cpu() function which > searches for the least loaded CPU and checks whether we can do passive > load-balancing to it. Ie. it's yet another balancing point in the > scheduler, _not_ some balancing logic change. > Yep, as I said to Martin, I also agree this is probably good if it is done carefully. I think we'll need to get a horde of thread benchmarking people together before turning it on by default, of course. It seems Andi can now get equivalent results without it now, so it isn't a pressing issue. - 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 13:02 [W:0.081 / U:0.020 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||