![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Con Kolivas wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 01:38 pm, Peter Williams wrote: > >>Con Kolivas wrote: >> > I guess we need to check whether reversing this patch helps. >> >>It would be interesting to see if it does. >> >>If it does we probably have to wear the cost (and try to reduce it) as >>without this change smp nice support is fairly ineffective due to the >>fact that it moves exactly the same tasks as would be moved without it. >> At the most it changes the frequency at which load balancing occurs. > > > I disagree. I think the current implementation changes the balancing according > to nice much more effectively than previously where by their very nature, low > priority tasks were balanced more frequently and ended up getting their own > cpu. No it does not provide firm 'nice' handling that we can achieve on UP > configurations but it is also free in throughput terms and miles better than > without it. I would like to see your more robust (and nicer code) solution > incorporated but I also want to see it cost us as little as possible. We > haven't confirmed anything just yet... Whether it turns out to be that or not ... 10% is a BIG frigging hit to take doing something basic like kernel compilation. Hell, 1% is a big hit to take, given the lengths we go to to buy that sort of benefit. M. - 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: 2006-01-11 04:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||