Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:39:08 -0700 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: [patch] HT scheduler, sched-2.5.68-B2 |
| |
> Sorry if I misunderstand, but if HT is present, I would think that you > would want to start the child of a fork on the same runqueue, because the > cache is loaded, and to run the child first because in many cases the > child will do and exac. At that point it is probable that the exec'd > process run on another CPU would leave the cache useful to the parent. > > I fully admit that this is "seems to me" rather than measured, but > protecting the cache is certainly a good thing in general.
We don't do balance on exec for SMP. I think we should ;-) AFAIK, fork always stays on the same runqueue anyway.
>> The key is that we want to agressively steal when >> nr_active(remote) - nr_active(idle) > 1 ... not > 0. >> This will implicitly *never* happen on non HT machines, so it seems >> like a nice algorithm ... ? > > Is it really that simple?
Well, *I* think so (obviously) ;-) Feel free to poke holes in the argument ...
M.
- 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/
| |