Messages in this thread | | | From | Erich Focht <> | Subject | Re: [patch] sched-2.5.59-A2 | Date | Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:30:22 +0100 |
| |
On Friday 17 January 2003 16:11, Ingo Molnar wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Erich Focht wrote: > > I like the cleanup of the topology.h. Also the renaming to > > prev_cpu_load. There was a mistake (I think) in the call to > > load_balance() in the idle path, guess you wanted to have: > > + load_balance(this_rq, 1, __node_to_cpu_mask(this_node)); > > instead of > > + load_balance(this_rq, 1, this_cpumask); > > otherwise you won't load balance at all for idle cpus. > > indeed - there was another bug as well, the 'idle' parameter to > load_balance() was 1 even in the busy branch, causing too slow balancing.
I didn't see that, but it's impact is only that a busy cpu is stealing at most one task from another node, otherwise the idle=1 leads to more aggressive balancing.
> > From these results I would prefer to either leave the numa scheduler as > > it is or to introduce an IDLE_NODEBALANCE_TICK and a > > BUSY_NODEBALANCE_TICK instead of just having one NODE_REBALANCE_TICK > > which balances very rarely. > > agreed, i've attached the -B0 patch that does this. The balancing rates > are 1 msec, 2 msec, 200 and 400 msec (idle-local, idle-global, busy-local, > busy-global).
This looks good! I'll see if I can rerun the tests today, anyway I'm more optimistic about this version.
Regards, Erich
- 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/
| |