Re: Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags

From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: 2005-07-29 11:46:19
Chen, Kenneth W wrote:

>Nick Piggin wrote on Thursday, July 28, 2005 6:25 PM
>
>>Well pipes are just an example. It could be any type of communication.
>>What's more, even the synchronous wakeup uses the wake balancing path
>>(although that could be modified to only do wake balancing for synch
>>wakeups, I'd have to be convinced we should special case pipes and not
>>eg. semaphores or AF_UNIX sockets).
>>
>
>
>Why is the normal load balance path not enough (or not be able to do the
>right thing)?  The reblance_tick and idle_balance ought be enough to take
>care of the imbalance.  What makes load balancing in wake up path so special?
>
>

Well the normal load balancing path treats all tasks the same, while
the wake path knows if a CPU is waking a remote task and can attempt
to maximise the number of local wakeups.

>Oh, I'd like to hear your opinion on what to do with these two flags, make
>them runtime configurable? (I'm of the opinion to delete them altogether)
>
>

I'd like to try making them less aggressive first if possible.


Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 
-
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 Jul 28 21:46:40 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:40 EST