Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:18:30 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [patch] sched: introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for ht/mc/smp domains |
| |
* Siddha, Suresh B <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> wrote:
> Introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for HT/MC/SMP domains. > > For HT/MC, as caches are shared, SD_BALANCE_FORK is the right thing to > do. Given that NUMA domain already has this flag and the scheduler > currently doesn't have the concept of running threads belonging to a > process as close as possible(i.e., forking may keep close, but > periodic balance later will likely take them far away), introduce > SD_BALANCE_FORK for SMP domain too. > > Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
i'm not opposed to this fundamentally, but it would be nice to better map the effects of this change: do you have any particular workload under which you've tested this and under which you've seen it makes a difference? I'd expect this to improve fork-intense half-idle workloads perhaps - things like a make -j3 on a 4-core CPU.
Ingo - 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/
| |