lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Feb]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/13] timestamp fixes
Nick, can you describe the system you run the DB tests on?  Do you have 
any cpu idle time stats and hopefully some context switch rate stats?

I think I understand the concern [patch 6] of stealing a task from one
node to an idle cpu in another node, but I wonder if we can have some
sort of check for idle balance: if the domain/node to steal from has
some idle cpu somewhere, we do not steal, period. To do this we have a
cpu_idle bitmask, we update as cpus go idle/busy, and we reference this
cpu_idle & sd->cpu_mask to see if there's at least one cpu that's idle.

> Ingo wrote:
>
> But i expect fork/clone balancing to be almost certainly a problem. (We
> didnt get it right for all workloads in 2.6.7, and i think it cannot be
> gotten right currently either, without userspace API help - but i'd be
> happy to be proven wrong.)

Perhaps initially one could balance on fork up to the domain level which
has task_hot_time=0, up to a shared cache by default. Anything above
that could require a numactl like preference from userspace.

-Andrew Theurer
-
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 14:10    [W:0.044 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site