Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:09:58 -0800 | From | Matthew Dobson <> | Subject | Re: [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 |
| |
Martin J. Bligh wrote: >>I repeated the tests with your B0 version and it's still not >>satisfying. Maybe too aggressive NODE_REBALANCE_IDLE_TICK, maybe the >>difference is that the other calls of load_balance() never have the >>chance to balance across nodes. > > > Nope, I found the problem. The topo cleanups are broken - we end up > taking all mem accesses, etc to node 0. > > Use the second half of the patch (the splitup I already posted), > and fix the obvious compile error. Works fine now ;-) > > Matt, you know the topo stuff better than anyone. Can you take a look > at the cleanup Ingo did, and see if it's easily fixable?
Umm.. most of it looks clean. I'm not really sure what the __cpu_to_node_mask(cpu) macro is supposed to do? it looks to be just an alias for the __node_to_cpu_mask() macro, which makes little sense to me. That's the only thing that immediately sticks out. I'm doubly confused as to why it's defined twice in include/linux/topology.h?
-Matt
> > M. > > PS. Ingo - I love the restructuring of the scheduler bits. > I think we need > 2 multipler though ... I set it to 10 for now. > Tuning will tell ... >
- 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/
| |