On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Nick Piggin wrote:
> So what I worry about with this approach is that it can really blow
> out the latency of a balancing operation. Say you have N-1 CPUs with
> lots of stuff locked on their runqueues.
>
> The solution I envisage is to do a "rotor" approach. For example
> the last attempted CPU could be stored in the starving CPU's sd...
> and it will subsequently try another one.
>
> I've been hot and cold on such an implementation for a while: on one
> hand it is a real problem we have; OTOH I was hoping that the domain
> balancing might be better generalised. But I increasingly don't
> think we should let perfect stand in the way of good... ;)
>
> Would you be interested in testing a patch?
Sure but I think we should move fast on this one. This has now been known
for around a year or so.
-
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]
