Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
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..
I saw nothing there to convince me that this patch isn't worthwhile.
Perhaps a better explanation would help me?
Peter
--
Peter Williams [email protected]
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-
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]
