Re: [PATCH] Fix longstanding load balancing bug in the scheduler.

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

On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 01:19:28PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 11:40:51AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > The balancing operation is not that frequent and having to treat a special 
> > > case in the callers would make code more complicated and likely offset the
> > > gains in this function.
> > 
> > This solution as such is not accurate and clean :) and my suggestion is
> > not making it any more ugly.
> > 
> > With increase in NR_CPUS, cost of cpumask operations will increase and 
> > we shouldn't penalize the other logical threads or cores sharing the caches by
> > bringing in unnecessary cache lines.
> 
> One cacheline sized 128bytes will support all 1024 cpus that IA64 allows. 
> cacheline align the cpumask?

one or more, it is unnecessary for the common case.

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/