Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:23:40 +0100 (CET) | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler: fix |
| |
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> If I understand that correctly (and I'm not sure I do), you're saying > you don't think the exec time balance should go global? That would break > most of the concept ... *something* has to distribute stuff around > nodes, and the exec point is the cheapest time to do that (least > "weight" to move. [...]
the exec()-time balancing is special, since it only moves the task in question - so the 'push' should indeed be a global decision. _But_, exec() is also a natural balancing point for the local node (we potentially just got rid of a task, which might create imbalance within the node), so it might make sense to do a 'local' balancing run as well, if the exec()-ing task was indeed pushed to another node.
> At the moment, the high-freq balancer is only inside a node. Exec > balancing is global, and the "low-frequency" balancer is global. WRT the > idle-time balancing, I agree with what I *think* you're saying ... this > shouldn't clock up the rq->nr_balanced counter ... this encourages too > much cross-node stealing. I'll hack that change out and see what it does > to the numbers.
yes, this should also further unify the SMP and NUMA balancing code.
Ingo
- 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/
| |