lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] Re: NUMA scheduler 2nd approach
Date
> I suppose I should not have been so dang lazy and cut-n-pasted
> the line I changed. The change was (((5*4*this_load)/4) + 4)
> which should be the same as your second choice.
> >
> > We def need some constant to avoid low load ping pong, right?
>
> Yep. Without the constant, one could have 6 processes on node
> A and 4 on node B, and node B would end up stealing. While making
> a perfect balance, the expense of the off-node traffic does not
> justify it. At least on the NUMAQ box. It might be justified
> for a different NUMA architecture, which is why I propose putting
> this check in a macro that can be defined in topology.h for each
> architecture.

Yes, I was also concerned about one task in one node and none in the others.
Without some sort of constant we will ping pong the task on every node
endlessly, since there is no % threshold that could make any difference when
the original load value is 0.. Your +4 gets rid of the 1 task case.

-Andrew

-
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: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.073 / U:0.920 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site