lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Lse-tech] Re: [patch] scheduler fix for 1cpu/node case
>>> If you want data supporting my assumptions: Ted Ts'o's talk at OLS
>>> shows the necessity to rebalance ASAP (even in try_to_wake_up).
>
>> If this is the patch I am thinking of, it was the (attached) one I sent
> them,
>> which did a light "push" rebalance at try_to_wake_up. Calling
> load_balance
>> at try_to_wake_up seems very heavy-weight. This patch only looks for an
> idle
>> cpu (within the same node) to wake up on before task activation, only if
> the
>> task_rq(p)->nr_running is too long. So, yes, I do believe this can be
>> important, but I think it's only called for when we have an idle cpu.
>
> The patch that you sent to Rajan didn't yield any improvement on
> specjappserver so we did not include that in the ols paper. What
> is described in the ols paper is "calling load-balance" from
> try-to-wake-up. Both calling load-balance from try-to-wakeup and
> the "light push" rebalance at try_to_wake_up are already done in
> Andrea's 0(1) scheduler patch.

Are the balances you're doing on wakeup global or node-local?

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 13:47    [W:0.028 / U:3.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site