On Wednesday 11 January 2006 23:24, Peter Williams wrote:
> Martin J. Bligh wrote:
> > That seems broken to me ?
>
> But, yes, given that the problem goes away when the patch is removed
> (which we're still waiting to see) it's broken. I think the problem is
> probably due to the changed metric (i.e. biased load instead of simple
> load) causing idle_balance() to fail more often (i.e. it decides to not
> bother moving any tasks more often than it otherwise would) which would
> explain the increased idle time being seen. This means that the fix
> would be to review the criteria for deciding whether to move tasks in
> idle_balance().
Look back on my implementation. The problem as I saw it was that one task
alone with a biased load would suddenly make a runqueue look much busier than
it was supposed to so I special cased the runqueue that had precisely one
task.
Cheers,
Con
-
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]
