On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 08:29:17AM +0000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> And don't forget that the watchdog approach can just as easily deep
> sleep a CPU only to immediately wake it up again if it detects an
> imbalance.
I think we should increase the threshold beyond which the idle CPU
is woken up (more than the imbalance_pct that exists already). This
should justify waking up the CPU.
> And the CPU usage / wakeup cost arguments cut both ways. The busy
> CPUs have to do extra work in the watchdog case.
Maybe with a really smart watchdog solution, we can cut down this overhead.
I did think of other schemes - a dedicated CPU per node acting as watchdog
for that node and per-node wacthdog kernel threads? - to name a few. What I had
proposed was the best I thought. But maybe we can look at improving it
to see if the overhead concern you have can be reduced - meeting the interests
of both the worlds :)
--
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]
