From: "John Hawkes" <hawkes@sgi.com>
To: dino@in.ibm.com, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Cc: paulus@samba.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org, mingo@elte.hu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.13-rc6] cpu_exclusive sched domains build fix
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:09:40 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <006a01c5a8c6$3c2006d0$6600a8c0@PCJohn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20050824112640.GB5197@in.ibm.com
From: "Dinakar Guniguntala" <dino@in.ibm.com>
> Can we hold on to this patch for a while, as I reported yesterday,
> this hangs up my ppc64 box on doing rmdir on a exclusive cpuset.
> Still debugging the problem, hope to have a fix soon, Thanks
Paul's patch simply constrains the scope of cpuset configurations that will
invoke the "dynamic sched domains" functionality, which means that some
cpu-exclusive (a.k.a. "isolated") cpusets will continue to have the
2.6.12-and-earlier behavior of being periodically examined by the CPU
Scheduler in load-balancing activities. That is, Paul's patch simply reverts
cpuset/sched domain behavior to pre-2.6.13 status (for some cpusets).
The pre-2.6.13 non-"dynamic sched domains" behavior will in fact produce bad
load-balancing behavior if a cpu-exclusive cpuset is so heavily loaded with
executing processes, all pinned to the cpu(s) in the cpuset, that the other
cpus in the system see this cpu(s)/node as the most-heavily-loaded and just
focus on it during load-balancing -- which would be futile, of course, since
the processes pinned to this highest-load cpu (and node) cannot be offloaded.
Since load-balancing looks only at the most-heavily-loaded cpu as a cpu to
offload, this means that all system load-balancing would be effectively turned
off.
John Hawkes
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "John Hawkes" <hawkes@sgi.com>
To: <dino@in.ibm.com>, "Paul Jackson" <pj@sgi.com>
Cc: <paulus@samba.org>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@osdl.org>,
<nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>, <linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <torvalds@osdl.org>,
<mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.13-rc6] cpu_exclusive sched domains build fix
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:09:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <006a01c5a8c6$3c2006d0$6600a8c0@PCJohn> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20050824112640.GB5197@in.ibm.com
From: "Dinakar Guniguntala" <dino@in.ibm.com>
> Can we hold on to this patch for a while, as I reported yesterday,
> this hangs up my ppc64 box on doing rmdir on a exclusive cpuset.
> Still debugging the problem, hope to have a fix soon, Thanks
Paul's patch simply constrains the scope of cpuset configurations that will
invoke the "dynamic sched domains" functionality, which means that some
cpu-exclusive (a.k.a. "isolated") cpusets will continue to have the
2.6.12-and-earlier behavior of being periodically examined by the CPU
Scheduler in load-balancing activities. That is, Paul's patch simply reverts
cpuset/sched domain behavior to pre-2.6.13 status (for some cpusets).
The pre-2.6.13 non-"dynamic sched domains" behavior will in fact produce bad
load-balancing behavior if a cpu-exclusive cpuset is so heavily loaded with
executing processes, all pinned to the cpu(s) in the cpuset, that the other
cpus in the system see this cpu(s)/node as the most-heavily-loaded and just
focus on it during load-balancing -- which would be futile, of course, since
the processes pinned to this highest-load cpu (and node) cannot be offloaded.
Since load-balancing looks only at the most-heavily-loaded cpu as a cpu to
offload, this means that all system load-balancing would be effectively turned
off.
John Hawkes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-08-24 16:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-08-23 8:04 [PATCH 2.6.13-rc6] cpu_exclusive sched domains on partial nodes temp fix Paul Jackson
2005-08-23 8:04 ` Paul Jackson
2005-08-23 8:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-08-23 8:10 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-08-23 15:07 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-08-23 15:19 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-08-24 0:19 ` John Hawkes
2005-08-24 0:19 ` John Hawkes
2005-08-24 11:15 ` [PATCH 2.6.13-rc6] cpu_exclusive sched domains build fix Paul Jackson
2005-08-24 11:15 ` Paul Jackson
2005-08-24 11:26 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-08-24 11:38 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-08-24 11:46 ` Paul Jackson
2005-08-24 11:46 ` Paul Jackson
2005-08-24 12:01 ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-24 12:01 ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-24 20:31 ` Paul Jackson
2005-08-24 20:31 ` Paul Jackson
2005-08-25 0:02 ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-25 0:02 ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-25 0:57 ` Paul Jackson
2005-08-25 0:57 ` Paul Jackson
2005-08-25 14:41 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-08-25 14:53 ` Dinakar Guniguntala
2005-08-25 15:20 ` Paul Jackson
2005-08-25 15:20 ` Paul Jackson
2005-08-24 16:09 ` John Hawkes [this message]
2005-08-24 16:09 ` John Hawkes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='006a01c5a8c6$3c2006d0$6600a8c0@PCJohn' \
--to=hawkes@sgi.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=dino@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.