[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #3
    Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > * Ingo Molnar <> wrote:
    >>there's an even simpler way: only do wakeup-balancing if this_cpu is
    >>idle. (tbench results are still OK, and other workloads improved.)
    > here's an updated patch. It handles one more detail: on SCHED_SMT we
    > should check the idleness of siblings too. Benchmark numbers still look
    > good.

    Maybe. Ken hasn't measured the effect of wake balancing in
    2.6.13, which is quite a lot different to that found in 2.6.12.

    I don't really like having a hard cutoff like that -wake
    balancing can be important for IO workloads, though I haven't
    measured for a long time. In IPC workloads, the cache affinity
    of local wakeups becomes less apparent when the runqueue gets
    lots of tasks on it, however benefits of IO affinity will
    generally remain. Especially on NUMA systems.

    fork/clone/exec/etc balancing really doesn't do anything to
    capture this kind of relationship between tasks and between
    tasks and IRQ sources. Without wake balancing we basically have
    a completely random scattering of tasks.

    SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

    Send instant messages to your online friends

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-07-30 02:20    [W:0.020 / U:15.896 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site