From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751187AbWIHUPg (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2006 16:15:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751189AbWIHUPg (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2006 16:15:36 -0400 Received: from mga07.intel.com ([143.182.124.22]:24248 "EHLO azsmga101.ch.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751187AbWIHUPe (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2006 16:15:34 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,134,1157353200"; d="scan'208"; a="113862872:sNHT30053954" Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 13:00:28 -0700 From: "Siddha, Suresh B" To: Christoph Lameter Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, npiggin@suse.de, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix longstanding load balancing bug in the scheduler. Message-ID: <20060908130028.A9446@unix-os.sc.intel.com> References: <20060908103529.A9121@unix-os.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from clameter@sgi.com on Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 11:40:51AM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 11:40:51AM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > The balancing operation is not that frequent and having to treat a special > case in the callers would make code more complicated and likely offset the > gains in this function. This solution as such is not accurate and clean :) and my suggestion is not making it any more ugly. With increase in NR_CPUS, cost of cpumask operations will increase and we shouldn't penalize the other logical threads or cores sharing the caches by bringing in unnecessary cache lines. thanks, suresh