Re: Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags

[Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>]

Chen, Kenneth W wrote:

> Nick Piggin wrote on Thursday, July 28, 2005 6:25 PM
>
> > Well pipes are just an example. It could be any type of communication.
> > What's more, even the synchronous wakeup uses the wake balancing path
> > (although that could be modified to only do wake balancing for synch
> > wakeups, I'd have to be convinced we should special case pipes and not
> > eg. semaphores or AF_UNIX sockets).
>
>
> Why is the normal load balance path not enough (or not be able to do the
> right thing)?  The reblance_tick and idle_balance ought be enough to take
> care of the imbalance.  What makes load balancing in wake up path so special?

Well the normal load balancing path treats all tasks the same, while
the wake path knows if a CPU is waking a remote task and can attempt
to maximise the number of local wakeups.

> Oh, I'd like to hear your opinion on what to do with these two flags, make
> them runtime configurable? (I'm of the opinion to delete them altogether)

I'd like to try making them less aggressive first if possible.


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
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/