lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:4.410 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site