From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S270040AbTG2QFd (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:05:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S270987AbTG2QFd (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:05:33 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:46798 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S270040AbTG2QE6 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Jul 2003 12:04:58 -0400 Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [patch] scheduler fix for 1cpu/node case To: "Martin J. Bligh" Cc: Andi Kleen , Erich Focht , linux-kernel , LSE , lse-tech-admin@lists.sourceforge.net, Mala Anand , torvalds@osdl.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.3 (Intl) 21 March 2000 Message-ID: From: Mala Anand Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:04:24 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM123/03/M/IBM(Release 6.0.1 [IBM]|June 10, 2003) at 07/29/2003 10:04:26 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >Are the balances you're doing on wakeup global or node-local? The test is not done on NUMA systems. Regards, Mala Mala Anand IBM Linux Technology Center - Kernel Performance E-mail:manand@us.ibm.com http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linuxperf http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/projects/linuxperf Phone:838-8088; Tie-line:678-8088 "Martin J. Bligh" To: Mala Anand/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Erich Focht , linux-kernel Sent by: , LSE lse-tech-admin@lists.sour cc: Andi Kleen , torvalds@osdl.org ceforge.net Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [patch] scheduler fix for 1cpu/node case 07/29/2003 09:29 AM >>> If you want data supporting my assumptions: Ted Ts'o's talk at OLS >>> shows the necessity to rebalance ASAP (even in try_to_wake_up). > >> If this is the patch I am thinking of, it was the (attached) one I sent > them, >> which did a light "push" rebalance at try_to_wake_up. Calling > load_balance >> at try_to_wake_up seems very heavy-weight. This patch only looks for an > idle >> cpu (within the same node) to wake up on before task activation, only if > the >> task_rq(p)->nr_running is too long. So, yes, I do believe this can be >> important, but I think it's only called for when we have an idle cpu. > > The patch that you sent to Rajan didn't yield any improvement on > specjappserver so we did not include that in the ols paper. What > is described in the ols paper is "calling load-balance" from > try-to-wake-up. Both calling load-balance from try-to-wakeup and > the "light push" rebalance at try_to_wake_up are already done in > Andrea's 0(1) scheduler patch. Are the balances you're doing on wakeup global or node-local? M. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ Lse-tech mailing list Lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lse-tech