Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
Hmm, I would have hoped the new "all_pinned" logic should have handled
this case properly. [...]
no, active_balance is a different case, not covered by the all_pinned
logic. This is a HT-special scenario, where busiest->nr_running == 1,
and we have to do active load-balancing. This does not go through
move_tasks() and does not set all_pinned. (If nr_running werent 1 we'd
not have to kick active load-balancing.)
Yeah I see. It looks like Suresh's patch should do a reasonable
job at doing "all pinned backoff" too, using the existing logic.
So I agree - great catch.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
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 [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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |