Messages in this thread | | | From | "Chen, Kenneth W" <> | Subject | RE: bug in sched.c:activate_task() | Date | Tue, 5 Oct 2004 10:30:48 -0700 |
| |
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Con Kolivas wrote: > We used to compare jiffy difference in can_migrate_task by comparing it > to cache_decay_ticks. Somewhere in the merging of sched_domains it was > changed to task_hot which uses timestamp.
On Tuesday, October 05, 2004 12:10 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > yep, that's fishy. Kenneth, could you try the simple patch below? It gets > rid of task_hot() in essence. If this works out we could try it - it gets > rid of some more code from sched.c too. Perhaps SD_WAKE_AFFINE is enough > control. > > --- kernel/sched.c.orig 2004-10-05 08:28:42.295395160 +0200 > +++ kernel/sched.c 2004-10-05 09:07:44.081389576 +0200 > @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ static unsigned int task_timeslice(task_ > else > return SCALE_PRIO(DEF_TIMESLICE, p->static_prio); > } > -#define task_hot(p, now, sd) ((now) - (p)->timestamp < (sd)->cache_hot_time) > +#define task_hot(p, now, sd) 0 > > enum idle_type > {
We have experimented with similar thing, via bumping up sd->cache_hot_time to a very large number, like 1 sec. What we measured was a equally low throughput. But that was because of not enough load balancing, we are seeing is large amount of idle time.
- Ken
- 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/
| |