Re: [patch 3/5] sched: multilevel sbe and sbf

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> 3/5

> The fundamental problem that Suresh has with balance on exec and fork
> is that it only tries to balance the top level domain with the flag
> set.
> 
> This was worked around by removing degenerate domains, but is still a
> problem if people want to start using more complex sched-domains, especially
> multilevel NUMA that ia64 is already using.
> 
> This patch makes balance on fork and exec try balancing over not just the
> top most domain with the flag set, but all the way down the domain tree.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

note that no matter how much scheduler logic, in the end 
cross-scheduling of tasks between nodes on NUMA will always have a 
permanent penalty (i.e. the 'migration cost' is 'infinity' in the long 
run), so the primary focus _hast to be_ on 'get it right initially' When 
tasks must spill over to other nodes will always remain a special case.  
So balance-on-fork/exec/[clone] definitely needs to be aware of the full 
domain tree picture.

	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/