Re: [PATCH] Fix smpnice high priority task hopping problem

["Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 01:51:46PM +1100, Peter Williams wrote:
> Peter Williams wrote:
> > There's a rational argument (IMHO) that this patch should be applied 
> > even in the absence of the smpnice patches as it prevents 
> > active_load_balance() doing unnecessary work.  If this isn't good for 
> > hypo threading then hypo threading is a special case and needs to handle 
> > it as such.
> 
> OK.  The good news is that (my testing shows that) the "sched: fix 
> smpnice abnormal nice anomalies" fixes the imbalance problem and the 
> consequent CPU hopping.

Thats because find_busiest_group() is no longer showing the imbalance :)
Anyhow if I get time I will review this patch before I start my vacation.
Otherwise I assume Nick and Ingo will review this closely..

> BUT I still think that this patch (modified if necessary to handle any 
> HT special cases) should be applied.  On a normal system, it will (as 
> I've already said) stop active_load_balance() from doing a lot of 
> unnecessary work INCLUDING holding the run queue locks for TWO run 
> queues for no good reason.

Please see my earlier response to this..

thanks,
suresh
-
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/