[lkml]   [2006]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix smpnice high priority task hopping problem
    Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
    > On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 01:51:46PM +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
    >>Peter Williams wrote:
    >>>There's a rational argument (IMHO) that this patch should be applied
    >>>even in the absence of the smpnice patches as it prevents
    >>>active_load_balance() doing unnecessary work. If this isn't good for
    >>>hypo threading then hypo threading is a special case and needs to handle
    >>>it as such.
    >>OK. The good news is that (my testing shows that) the "sched: fix
    >>smpnice abnormal nice anomalies" fixes the imbalance problem and the
    >>consequent CPU hopping.
    > Thats because find_busiest_group() is no longer showing the imbalance :)
    > Anyhow if I get time I will review this patch before I start my vacation.
    > Otherwise I assume Nick and Ingo will review this closely..
    >>BUT I still think that this patch (modified if necessary to handle any
    >>HT special cases) should be applied. On a normal system, it will (as
    >>I've already said) stop active_load_balance() from doing a lot of
    >>unnecessary work INCLUDING holding the run queue locks for TWO run
    >>queues for no good reason.
    > Please see my earlier response to this..

    I saw nothing there to convince me that this patch isn't worthwhile.
    Perhaps a better explanation would help me?

    Peter Williams

    "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
    -- Ambrose Bierce
    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: 2006-02-17 04:19    [W:0.021 / U:31.768 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site