lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-07-27 00:23    [W:0.023 / U:31.960 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site