Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 25 Oct 2003 11:12:39 +1000 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: Nick's scheduler v17 |
| |
Andrew Theurer wrote:
>On Friday 24 October 2003 13:10, Nick Piggin wrote: > >>Hi, >>http://www.kerneltrap.org/~npiggin/v17/ >> >>Still working on SMP and NUMA. Some (maybe) interesting things I put in are >>- Sequential CPU balancing so you don't get a big storm of balances >>every 1/4s. >>- Balancing is trying to err more on the side of caution, I have to start >> analysing it more thoroughly though. >> > >+ >+ *imbalance /= 2; >+ *imbalance = (*imbalance + FPT - 1) / FPT; > >I think I see what is going on here, but would something like this work out >better? >
Yeah, sorry its not well commented. Its still changing quite quickly.
> > *imbalance = min(this_load - load_avg, load_avg - max_load) > >That way you take just enough to either have busiest_queue or this_rq's length >be the load_avg. I suppose you could take even less, but IMO, the /=2 is >what I really don't like. Perhaps: >
That is _exactly_ what I had before! Thats probably the way to go. Thanks for having a look at it.
> > >*imbalance = min(this_load - load_avg, load_avg - max_load); >*imbalance = (*imbalance + FPT - 1) / FPT; > >This should work well for intranode balances, internode balances may need a >little optimization, since the load_avg really does not really represent the >load avg of the two nodes in question, just one cpu from one of them and all >the cpus from another. >
Yeah that does need a bit of rethinking.
- 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/
| |