Messages in this thread | | | From | "Chen, Kenneth W" <> | Subject | RE: [RFC][PATCH] sched: aggressive idle balance | Date | Tue, 2 Nov 2004 14:34:31 -0800 |
| |
Andrew Theurer wrote on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 12:17 PM > > This patch allows more aggressive idle balances, reducing idle time in > scenarios where should not be any, where nr_running > nr_cpus. We have seen > this in a couple of online transaction workloads. Three areas are targeted: > > 1) In try_to_wake_up(), wake_idle() is called to move the task to a sibling if > the task->cpu is busy and the sibling is idle. This has been expanded to any > idle cpu, but the closest idle cpu is picked first by starting with cpu->sd, > then going up the domains as necessary.
It occurs to me that half of the patch only applicable to HT, like the change in wake_idle(). And also, do you really want to put that functionality in wake_idle()? Seems defeating the original intention of that function, which only tries to wake up sibling cpu as far as how I understand the code.
My setup is 4-way SMP, no HT (4-way itanium2 processor), sorry, I won't be able to tell you how this portion of the change affect online transaction workload.
- 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/
| |