* Siddha, Suresh B <[email protected]> wrote:
> Introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for HT/MC/SMP domains.
>
> For HT/MC, as caches are shared, SD_BALANCE_FORK is the right thing to
> do. Given that NUMA domain already has this flag and the scheduler
> currently doesn't have the concept of running threads belonging to a
> process as close as possible(i.e., forking may keep close, but
> periodic balance later will likely take them far away), introduce
> SD_BALANCE_FORK for SMP domain too.
>
> Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <[email protected]>
i'm not opposed to this fundamentally, but it would be nice to better
map the effects of this change: do you have any particular workload
under which you've tested this and under which you've seen it makes a
difference? I'd expect this to improve fork-intense half-idle workloads
perhaps - things like a make -j3 on a 4-core CPU.
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]
