lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Missing recalculation of scheduler tunables in case of cpu hot add/remove
Hi!

> > >>> Aside from that, we probably should put an upper limit in place, as I
> > >>> guess large cpu count machines get silly large values
> > >>>
> > >> I agree to that, but in the code is already an upper limit of
> > >> 200.000.000 - well we might discuss if that is too low/high.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yeah, I think we should cap it around the 8-16 CPUs.
> > >
> > >
> > ok for me, driven by that finding I think I have to measure different
> > kind of scalings anyway, but as usually that takes some time :-/
> > At least too time much for the discussion & solution of that bug I guess.
> >
> > The question for now is what we do on cpu hot add/remove?
> > Would hooking somewhere in kernel/cpu.c be the right approach - I'm not
> > quite sure about my own suggestion yet :-).
>
> Something like the below might work I suppose, just needs a cleanup and
> such.

I see a rather fundamental problem: what if user wants to override
those values, and wants them stay that way?

If you do this, suspend/resume will put the old values back AFAICT.

Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-03 10:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site