lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Missing recalculation of scheduler tunables in case of cpu hot add/remove
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 17:25 +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>
>>> Aside from that, we probably should put an upper limit in place, as I
>>> guess large cpu count machines get silly large values
>>>
>> I agree to that, but in the code is already an upper limit of
>> 200.000.000 - well we might discuss if that is too low/high.
>>
>
> Yeah, I think we should cap it around the 8-16 CPUs.
>
>
ok for me, driven by that finding I think I have to measure different
kind of scalings anyway, but as usually that takes some time :-/
At least too time much for the discussion & solution of that bug I guess.

The question for now is what we do on cpu hot add/remove?
Would hooking somewhere in kernel/cpu.c be the right approach - I'm not
quite sure about my own suggestion yet :-).

--

Grüsse / regards, Christian Ehrhardt
IBM Linux Technology Center, Open Virtualization

--
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: 2009-11-26 17:35    [W:0.059 / U:0.652 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site