Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:16:13 +1100 | From | Peter Williams <> | Subject | Re: [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 -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"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 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/
| |