On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 11:15:16AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > especially on NUMA, if the migration-target CPU (this_cpu) is not at > > least partially idle, i'd be quite uneasy to passive balance from > > another node. I suspect this needs numbers from Martin and John? > > Passive balancing cuts in only when an imbalance is becoming apparent. > If the queue gets more imbalanced, periodic balancing will cut in, > and that is much worse than wake balancing.
Another point to note about the current wake balance. Imbalance calculation is not taking the complete load of the sched group into account. I think there might be scenario's where the current wake balance will actually result in some imbalances corrected later by periodic balancing. thanks, suresh - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
