Peter Williams wrote:
Martin Bligh wrote:
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Andy Whitcroft wrote:
Peter Williams wrote:
Attached is a new patch to fix the excessive idle problem. This patch
takes a new approach to the problem as it was becoming obvious that
trying to alter the load balancing code to cope with biased load was
harder than it seemed.
Ok. Tried testing different-approach-to-smp-nice-problem against the
transition release 2.6.14-rc2-mm1 but it doesn't apply. Am testing
against 2.6.15-mm3 right now. Will let you know.
Doesn't appear to help if I am analysing the graphs right. Martin?
Nope. still broken.
Interesting. The only real difference between this and Con's original
patch is the stuff that he did in source_load() and target_load() to
nobble the bias when nr_running is 1 or less. With this new model it
should be possible to do something similar in those functions but I'll
hold off doing anything until a comparison against 2.6.15-mm3 with the
patch removed is available (as there are other scheduler changes in -mm3).
Ideally, balancing should be completely unaffected when all tasks are
of priority 0 which is what I thought yours did, and why I think the
current system is not great.
I'll probably end up taking a look at it one day, if it doesn't get fixed.
I think your patch is pretty close but I didn't quite look close enough to
work out what's going wrong.
--
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
