From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
Cc: Rick Lindsley <ricklind@us.ibm.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dvhltc@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Load balancing problem in 2.6.2-mm1
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:25:05 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <242810000.1076113505@flay> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40242D14.6070908@cyberone.com.au>
>> Not sure how true that turns out to be in practice ... probably depends
>> heavily on both the workload (how heavily it's using the cache) and the
>> chip (larger caches have proportionately more to lose).
>>
>> As we go forward in time, cache warmth gets increasingly important, as
>> CPUs accelerate speeds quicker than memory. Cache sizes also get larger.
>> I'd really like us to be conservative here - the unfairness thing is
>> really hard to hit anyway - you need a static number of processes that
>> don't ever block on IO or anything.
>
> Can we keep current behaviour default, and if arches want to
> override it they can? And if someone one day does testing to
> show it really isn't a good idea, then we can change the default.
Well, that should be a pretty easy test to do. I'll try it.
M.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-07 0:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-06 9:24 [PATCH] Load balancing problem in 2.6.2-mm1 Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 9:38 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 18:13 ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 21:57 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 22:30 ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 22:40 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 22:49 ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 23:08 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 10:30 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-06 18:15 ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 18:39 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 22:02 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 22:34 ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 22:48 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 22:42 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 22:53 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 23:11 ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 23:20 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 23:33 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 23:41 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 23:47 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-07 0:11 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-07 0:25 ` Martin J. Bligh [this message]
2004-02-07 0:31 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-07 9:50 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-08 0:40 ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-08 1:12 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-08 1:21 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-08 1:41 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-08 3:20 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-08 3:57 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-08 4:05 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-08 12:14 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-08 1:22 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-09 16:37 ` Timothy Miller
2004-02-09 16:43 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 18:33 ` Martin J. Bligh
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=242810000.1076113505@flay \
--to=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
--cc=ricklind@us.ibm.com \
/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.