Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 May 2003 12:32:13 -0700 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: [Lse-tech] Node affine NUMA scheduler extension |
| |
> Can you define what you mean by big vs small? I presume you mean RSS? > There are several factors that come into play here, at least: > > 1. RSS (and which bits of this lie on which node) > 2. CPU utilisation of the task > 3. Task duration > 4. Cache warmth > 5. the current balance situation. > > Along the same lines, would it make sense to *permit* imbalances for some > classes of tasks? It may be worth it, for example, to let three threads > sharing a lot of data to saturate one cpu because what they lose from > their self-competition is saved from the extremely warm cache. > > So you leave cpu0 at 7 tasks even though cpu1 only has 4, because the 7 are > "related" and the 4 are "dissimilar"? The equation changes dramatically, > perhaps, once their is an idle cpu, but if everything is busy does it make > sense to weight the items in the runqueues in any way?
It'd make sense ... but I think it would be a bitch to implement ;-) How do you know when it's worth it?
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/
| |