Re: [PATCH] top level scheduler domain for ia64

From: Xavier Bru <xavier.bru_at_bull.net>
Date: 2004-10-22 00:11:48
Hello Nick & all,

Nick Piggin wrote:

> Luck, Tony wrote:
>
>
>> +    .min_interval        = 80,            \
>> +    .max_interval        = 320,            \
>> +    .busy_factor        = 320,            \
>> +    .imbalance_pct        = 125,            \
>> +    .cache_hot_time        = (10*1000000),        \
>> +    .balance_interval    = 100*(63+num_online_cpus())/64,   \
>>
>> That's a lot of magic numbers and formulae ... are they right?
>> How would a user know if they are right.
>>
>
> To be honest you really wouldn't. It would take a lot of careful
> testing on numerous workloads and systems. I believe SGI is
> starting to do a bit of testing... I don't have the resources to
> do many "real world" tests.
>
> At this stage I wouldn't let them worry you too much :P
> Hopefully they'll gradually improve.

Why should'nt we use the node_distance() function to build in an 
independant way the Numa hierarchy and compute the right parameters for 
each level ?


-- 

 Sincères salutations.
_____________________________________________________________________
 
Xavier BRU                 BULL ISD/R&D/INTEL office:     FREC B1-422
tel : +33 (0)4 76 29 77 45                    http://www-frec.bull.fr
fax : +33 (0)4 76 29 77 70                 mailto:Xavier.Bru@bull.net
addr: BULL, 1 rue de Provence, BP 208, 38432 Echirolles Cedex, FRANCE
_____________________________________________________________________


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Thu Oct 21 10:16:41 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:31 EST