On Fri, 2013-02-15 at 01:13 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Think about it some more, just because we go idle isn't enough reason to > pull a runable task over. CPUs go idle all the time, and tasks are woken > up all the time. There's no reason that we can't just wait for the sched > tick to decide its time to do a bit of balancing. Sure, it would be nice > if the idle CPU did the work. But I think that frame of mind was an > incorrect notion from back in the early 2000s and does not apply to > today's hardware, or perhaps it doesn't apply to the (relatively) new > CFS scheduler. If you want aggressive scheduling, make the task rt, and > it will do aggressive scheduling.
(the throttle is supposed to keep idle_balance() from doing severe damage, that may want a peek/tweak) Hackbench spreads itself with FORK/EXEC balancing, how does say a kbuild do with no idle_balance()? -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
