[lkml]   [2003]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] HT scheduler, sched-2.5.68-A9
Ingo, thanks for clearing up some things.

yes. This 'un-sharing' of contexts happens unconditionally, whenever
we notice the situation. (ie. whenever a CPU goes completely idle
and notices an overloaded physical CPU.) On the HT system i have i
have measure this to be a beneficial move even for the most trivial
things like infinite loop-counting.

I have access to a 4-proc HT so I can try it there too. Did you test with
micro-benchmarks like the loop-counting or did you use something bigger?

the more per-logical-CPU cache a given SMT implementation has,
the less beneficial this move becomes - in that case the system
should rather be set up as a NUMA topology and scheduled via the
NUMA scheduler.

whew. So why are we perverting the migration thread to push
rather than pull? If active_load_balance() finds a imbalance,
why must we use such indirection? Why decrement nr_running?
Couldn't we put together a migration_req_t for the target queue's
migration thread?

i'm not sure what you mean by perverting the migration thread to
push rather to pull, as migration threads always push - it's not
different in this case either.

My bad -- I read the comments around migration_thread(), and they could
probably be improved. When I looked at the code, yes, it's more of
a push. The migration thread process occupies the processor so that
you can be sure the process-of-interest is not running and can be more
easily manipulated.

we could use a migration_req_t for this, in theory, but active
balancing is independent of ->cpus_allowed, so some special code
would still be needed.

I'm just looking for the cleanest approach. Functionally I see no
difference; just seems like we go running through the queues several times
(not all in active_load_balance) before active_load_balance has achieved
its goal. I was thinking maybe a directed move by the migration thread
("move THAT process to THAT processor/runqueue"), similar to what is done
in set_cpus_allowed(), might be cleaner and faster. Maybe I'll try that.

Also, active balancing is non-queued by nature. Is there a big

I'm not sure active balancing really is independent of cpus_allowed.
Yes, all the searches are done without that restriction in place, but
then we ultimately call load_balance(), which *will* care. load_balance()
may end up not moving what we wanted (or anything at all.)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.078 / U:9.072 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site