On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 12:52:48AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Well, there are a lot of ifs and buts. Some domains won't implement
> fork balancing, others won't do newidle balancing, wake balancing,
> wake to idle, etc etc.
Good point. I had somehow assumed that these are true for all domains.
My bad ..
>
> I think my idea of allowing max_interval to be extended to a
> sufficiently large value if one CPU goes idle, and shutting off all
> CPU's rebalancing completely if no tasks are running for some time
> should cater to both hypervisor images and power saving concerns.
Maybe we should check with virtual machine folks on this. Will
check with UML and S390 folks tomorrow.
> >A possible patch for B follows below:
> >
>
> Yeah something like that should do it.
Ok ..thanks. Will include this patch in the final
load-balance-fix-for-no-hz-idle-cpus's patch!
--
Thanks and Regards,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Labs,
Bangalore, INDIA - 560017
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
