Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 04:03:41PM +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> There's a lot of ugly code in the load balancer that is only there to 
> overcome the side effects of SMT and dual core.  A lot of it was put 
> there by Intel employees trying to make load balancing more friendly to 
> their systems.  What I'm suggesting is that an N CPUs per runqueue is a 
> better way of achieving that end.  I may (of course) be wrong but I 
> think that the idea deserves more consideration than you're willing to 
> give it.

This may be a good one to ask Ingo about, as he did significant
performance work on per-core runqueues for SMT. While I did write
per-node runqueue code for NUMA at some point in the past, I did no
tuning or other performance work on it, only functionality.

I've actually dealt with kernels using elder versions of Ingo's code
for per-core runqueues on SMT, but was never called upon to examine
that particular code for either performance or stability, so I'm
largely ignorant of what the perceived outcome of it was.


-- wli
-
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/

---

• References:
  • Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
    • From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
    • From: William Lee Irwin III <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
    • From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
    • From: William Lee Irwin III <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
    • From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
    • From: "Michael K. Edwards" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
    • From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
    • From: Peter Williams <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
• Next by Date: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
• Previous by thread: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
• Next by thread: Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]