From: Andrew Theurer <habanero@us.ibm.com>
To: Erich Focht <efocht@hpce.nec.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>, mingo@elte.hu
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
LSE <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>,
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>,
torvalds@osdl.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.0t4] 1 cpu/node scheduler fix
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 10:54:36 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200308251054.36216.habanero@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200308241913.24699.efocht@hpce.nec.com>
> This simple patch is not meant as opposition to Andrew's attempt to
> NUMAize the whole scheduler. That one will definitely make NUMA
> coders' lives easier but I fear that it is a bit too complex for
> 2.6.
I would agree, it's probably too much to change this late in 2.6. Eventually
(2.7) I think we should revisit this and try for a more unified approach.
> The attached small incremental change is sufficient to solve the
> main problem. Besides, the change of the cross-node scheduling is
> compatible with Andrew's scheduler structure. I really don't like the
> timer-based cross-node balancing because it is too unflexible (no way
> to have different balancing intervals for each node) and I'd really
> like to get back to just one single point of entry for load balancing:
> the routine load_balance(), no matter whether we balance inside a
> timer interrupt or while the CPU is going idle.
Looks good to me. One other thing your patch fixes: Once in a while we
called load_balance in rebalance_tick with the wrong 'idle' value.
Occasionally we would be on an idle_node and idle_cpu rebalance tick, the
idle cpu would [possibly] pull a task, become non-idle, then we would call
load_balance again, but still have idle=1 for the intranode balance.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-25 15:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-24 17:13 [patch 2.6.0t4] 1 cpu/node scheduler fix Erich Focht
2003-08-25 8:13 ` Ingo Molnar
2003-09-02 10:57 ` Erich Focht
2003-08-25 15:54 ` Andrew Theurer [this message]
2003-08-25 17:38 ` Martin J. Bligh
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200308251054.36216.habanero@us.ibm.com \
--to=habanero@us.ibm.com \
--cc=ak@muc.de \
--cc=efocht@hpce.nec.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).