Re: sched_domains SD_BALANCE_FORK and sched_balance_self

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

Siddha, Suresh B wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:19:58PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>
> > --On Tuesday, August 09, 2005 15:03:32 -0700 "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Balance on clone make some sort of sense, since you know they're not
> > going to exec afterwards. We've thrashed through this many times before
> > and decided that unless there was an explicit hint from userspace,
> > balance on fork was not a good thing to do in the general case. Not only
> > based on a large range of testing, but also previous experience from other
> > Unix's. What new data came forth to change this?
>
> I agree with you. I will let Nick(the author) have a take at this.

Sorry I've taken a while with this. Darren, I'll reply to you soon.


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/