On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 11:24:14AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I'm not saying that I would reject any patch that did this or changed
> behaviour in the way that you would propose, however I would like
> to merge the version I sent as a bug fix first.
Please go ahead. Depending on the need, we will
Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:49:36AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
Well, it is a departure from our current idea of balancing.
That idea is already changing from the first line of the patch.
And the change is "allowing the load to grow upto the sched
group's cpu_power"
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:49:36AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Well, it is a departure from our current idea of balancing.
That idea is already changing from the first line of the patch.
And the change is "allowing the load to grow upto the sched
group's cpu_power"
> I would prefer to use my pa
Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:09:10PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
I have a variation on the 2nd part of your patch which I think
I would prefer. IMO it kind of generalises the current imbalance
calculation to handle this case rather than introducing a new
special case.
The
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:09:10PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I have a variation on the 2nd part of your patch which I think
> I would prefer. IMO it kind of generalises the current imbalance
> calculation to handle this case rather than introducing a new
> special case.
There is a difference bet
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 19:03 -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:27:44AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Yeah this makes sense. Thanks.
> >
> > I think we'll only need your first line change to fix this, though.
> >
> > Your second change will break situations where a single
* Siddha, Suresh B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 11:27:17AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Siddha, Suresh B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Jack Steiner brought this issue at my OLS talk.
> > >
> > > Take a scenario where two tasks are pinned to two HT threads
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:27:44AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Yeah this makes sense. Thanks.
>
> I think we'll only need your first line change to fix this, though.
>
> Your second change will break situations where a single group is very
> loaded, but it is in a domain with lots of cpu_power
>
Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
For example, lets take two nodes each having two physical packages. And
assume that there are two tasks and both of them are on (may or may n't be
pinned) two packages in node-0
Todays load balance will detect that there is an imbalance between the
two nodes and will try
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 11:27:17AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Siddha, Suresh B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jack Steiner brought this issue at my OLS talk.
> >
> > Take a scenario where two tasks are pinned to two HT threads in a physical
> > package. Idle packages in the system will ke
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 04:09:17PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> I have a patch here which I still need to do more testing with,
> which might help performance on HT systems.
>
> I found that idle siblings could cause SMP and NUMA balancing to
> be too aggressive in some cases.
> --
> If an idle si
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm, I would have hoped the new "all_pinned" logic should have handled
this case properly. [...]
no, active_balance is a different case, not covered by the all_pinned
logic. This is a HT-special scenario, where busiest->nr_runnin
* Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
> >Jack Steiner brought this issue at my OLS talk.
> >
> >Take a scenario where two tasks are pinned to two HT threads in a physical
> >package. Idle packages in the system will keep kicking migration_thread
> >on the busy package
* Siddha, Suresh B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jack Steiner brought this issue at my OLS talk.
>
> Take a scenario where two tasks are pinned to two HT threads in a physical
> package. Idle packages in the system will keep kicking migration_thread
> on the busy package with out any success.
>
Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
Jack Steiner brought this issue at my OLS talk.
Take a scenario where two tasks are pinned to two HT threads in a physical
package. Idle packages in the system will keep kicking migration_thread
on the busy package with out any success.
We will run into similar scenarios
15 matches
Mail list logo
