Ingo Molnar wrote on Saturday, July 30, 2005 12:19 AM
> * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > here's an updated patch. It handles one more detail: on SCHED_SMT we
> > > should check the idleness of siblings too. Benchmark numbers still
> > > look good.
> >
> > Maybe. Ken hasn't measu
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?
>
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't really like having a hard cutoff like that -wake balancing can
be important for IO workloads, though I haven't measured for a long
time. [...]
well, i have measured it, and it was a win for just about everything
I meant
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > here's an updated patch. It handles one more detail: on SCHED_SMT we
> > should check the idleness of siblings too. Benchmark numbers still
> > look good.
>
> Maybe. Ken hasn't measured the effect of wake balancing in 2.6.13,
> which is quite a lot
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
there's an even simpler way: only do wakeup-balancing if this_cpu is
idle. (tbench results are still OK, and other workloads improved.)
here's an updated patch. It handles one more detail: on SCHED_SMT we
should check the idleness
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there's an even simpler way: only do wakeup-balancing if this_cpu is
> idle. (tbench results are still OK, and other workloads improved.)
here's an updated patch. It handles one more detail: on SCHED_SMT we
should check the idleness of siblings too. B
