Re: + sched-use-tasklet-to-call-balancing.patch added to -mm tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tasklets are scheduled on the same cpu that triggered the tasklet. 
> They are just moved to other processors if the processor goes down. So 
> that aspect is fine. We just need a tasklet struct per cpu.
> 
> User a per cpu tasklet to schedule rebalancing
> 
> Turns out that tasklets have a flag that only allows one instance to 
> run on all processors. So we need a tasklet structure for each 
> processor.

Per-CPU tasklets are equivalent to softirqs, with extra complexity and 
overhead ontop of it :-)

so please just introduce a rebalance softirq and attach the scheduling 
rebalance tick to it. But i'd suggest to re-test on the 4096-CPU box, 
maybe what 'fixed' your workload was the global serialization of the 
tasklet. With a per-CPU softirq approach we are i think back to the same 
situation that broke your system before.

	Ingo
-
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]
  Powered by Linux