Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:17:02 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: [patch] scheduler: rebalance_tick interval update |
| |
Darren Hart wrote:
>The current rebalance_tick() code assigns each sched_domain's >last_balance field to += interval after performing a load_balance. If >interval is 10, this has the effect of saying: we want to run >load_balance at time = 10, 20, 30, 40, etc... If for example >last_balance=10 and for some reason rebalance_tick can't be run until >30, load_balance will be called and last_balance will be updated to 20, >causing it to call load_balance again immediately the next time it is >called since the interval is 10 and we are already at >30. It seems to >me that it would make much more sense for last_balance to be assigned >jiffies after a load_balance, then the meaning of last_balance is more >exact: "this domain was last balanced at jiffies" rather than "we last >handled the balance we were supposed to do at 20, at some indeterminate >time". The following patch makes this change. > >
Hi Darren,
This is how I first implemented it... but I think this will cause rebalance points of each processor to tend to become synchronised (rather than staggered) as ticks get lost.
- 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/
| |