From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: 'Nick Piggin' <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RE: Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:39:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200507290139.j6T1dNg03701@unix-os.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42E98582.2080406@yahoo.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <200507282308.j6SN8Tg01993@unix-os.sc.intel.com>
Nick Piggin wrote on Thursday, July 28, 2005 6:25 PM
> Well pipes are just an example. It could be any type of communication.
> What's more, even the synchronous wakeup uses the wake balancing path
> (although that could be modified to only do wake balancing for synch
> wakeups, I'd have to be convinced we should special case pipes and not
> eg. semaphores or AF_UNIX sockets).
Why is the normal load balance path not enough (or not be able to do the
right thing)? The reblance_tick and idle_balance ought be enough to take
care of the imbalance. What makes load balancing in wake up path so special?
Oh, I'd like to hear your opinion on what to do with these two flags, make
them runtime configurable? (I'm of the opinion to delete them altogether)
- Ken
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-29 1:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-28 23:08 Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-28 23:34 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-28 23:48 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 1:25 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 1:39 ` Chen, Kenneth W [this message]
2005-07-29 1:46 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 1:53 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 2:01 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 6:27 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 8:48 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 8:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 8:59 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29 9:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 9:07 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 16:40 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 11:48 ` [patch] remove wake-balancing Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 14:13 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 15:02 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2 Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 16:21 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #3 Ingo Molnar
2005-07-30 0:08 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-30 7:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-31 1:15 ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-01 17:13 ` Siddha, Suresh B
2005-08-08 23:18 ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-30 23:26 ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2 Chuck Ebbert
2005-07-31 4:35 ` Con Kolivas
2005-07-31 6:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-31 13:35 ` Chuck Ebbert
2005-07-29 11:26 ` Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 17:30 ` Chen, Kenneth W
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=200507290139.j6T1dNg03701@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
--to=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox