lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler: fix
> yes, i saw it, it has the same tying between idle-CPU-rebalance and
> inter-node rebalance, as Erich's patch. You've put it into
> cpus_to_balance(), but that still makes rq->nr_balanced a 'synchronously'
> coupled balancing act. There are two synchronous balancing acts currently:
> the 'CPU just got idle' event, and the exec()-balancing (*) event. Neither
> must involve any 'heavy' balancing, only local balancing. The inter-node

If I understand that correctly (and I'm not sure I do), you're saying
you don't think the exec time balance should go global? That would
break most of the concept ... *something* has to distribute stuff around
nodes, and the exec point is the cheapest time to do that (least "weight"
to move. I'd like to base it off cached load-averages, rather than going
sniffing every runqueue, but if you're meaning we should only exec time
balance inside a node, I disagree. Am I just misunderstanding you?

At the moment, the high-freq balancer is only inside a node. Exec balancing
is global, and the "low-frequency" balancer is global. WRT the idle-time
balancing, I agree with what I *think* you're saying ... this shouldn't
clock up the rq->nr_balanced counter ... this encourages too much cross-node
stealing. I'll hack that change out and see what it does to the numbers.

Would appreciate more feedback on the first paragraph. Thanks,

M.



-
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:0.120 / U:0.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site