[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:0.029 / U:22.716 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site