Re: [patch] sched: introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for ht/mc/smp domains

2007-07-30 Thread Siddha, Suresh B
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 11:16:44PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Siddha, Suresh B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > They might be doing more exec's and probably covered by exec balance. > > > > There was a small pthread test case which was calculating the time to > > create all the threads and

Re: [patch] sched: introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for ht/mc/smp domains

2007-07-29 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Siddha, Suresh B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They might be doing more exec's and probably covered by exec balance. > > There was a small pthread test case which was calculating the time to > create all the threads and how much time each thread took to start > running. It appeared as if the

Re: [patch] sched: introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for ht/mc/smp domains

2007-07-27 Thread Siddha, Suresh B
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 03:22:14AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 03:34:56PM -0700, Suresh B wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 12:18:30AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Siddha, Suresh B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for HT/MC/SMP

Re: [patch] sched: introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for ht/mc/smp domains

2007-07-26 Thread Nick Piggin
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 03:34:56PM -0700, Suresh B wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 12:18:30AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Siddha, Suresh B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for HT/MC/SMP domains. > > > > > > For HT/MC, as caches are shared, SD_BALANCE_FORK i

Re: [patch] sched: introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for ht/mc/smp domains

2007-07-26 Thread Siddha, Suresh B
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 12:18:30AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Siddha, Suresh B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for HT/MC/SMP domains. > > > > For HT/MC, as caches are shared, SD_BALANCE_FORK is the right thing to > > do. Given that NUMA domain already has this fl

Re: [patch] sched: introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for ht/mc/smp domains

2007-07-26 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Siddha, Suresh B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for HT/MC/SMP domains. > > For HT/MC, as caches are shared, SD_BALANCE_FORK is the right thing to > do. Given that NUMA domain already has this flag and the scheduler > currently doesn't have the concept of running threa

[patch] sched: introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for ht/mc/smp domains

2007-07-26 Thread Siddha, Suresh B
Introduce SD_BALANCE_FORK for HT/MC/SMP domains. For HT/MC, as caches are shared, SD_BALANCE_FORK is the right thing to do. Given that NUMA domain already has this flag and the scheduler currently doesn't have the concept of running threads belonging to a process as close as possible(i.e., forking