Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:04:52 +1000 | From | Peter Williams <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: smpnice work around for active_load_balance() |
| |
Peter Williams wrote: > Siddha, Suresh B wrote: >> HT/MC imbalance is detected in a normal way.. A lightly loaded group >> finds an imbalance and tries to pull some load from a busy group (which >> is inline with normal load balance)... pull fails because the only task >> on that cpu is busy running and needs to go off the cpu (which is >> triggered >> by active load balance)... Scheduler load balance is generally done by >> a pull mechansim and here (HT/MC) it is still a pull >> mechanism(triggering a final push only because of the single running >> task) >> If you have any better generic and simple method, please let us know. > > I gave an example in a previous e-mail. Basically, at the end of > scheduler_tick() if rebalance_tick() doesn't move any tasks (it would be > foolish to contemplate moving tasks of the queue just after you've moved > some there) and the run queue has exactly one running task and it's time > for a HT/MC rebalance check on the package that this run queue belongs > to then check that package to to see if it meets the rest of criteria > for needing to lose some tasks. If it does look for a package that is a > suitable recipient for the moved task and if you find one then mark this > run queue as needing active load balancing and arrange for its migration > thread to be started. > > Simple, direct and amenable to being only built on architectures that > need the functionality.
Are you working on this idea or should I do it?
Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce - 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/
| |