[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] sched: introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for ht/mc/smp domains

* Siddha, Suresh B <> 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 <>

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.

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: 2007-07-27 00:23    [W:0.041 / U:32.576 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site