From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 06:29:27 +0000 Subject: Re: [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2 Message-Id: <20050731062927.GA472@elte.hu> List-Id: References: <200507301929_MC3-1-A601-D4C2@compuserve.com> In-Reply-To: <200507301929_MC3-1-A601-D4C2@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Cc: "Chen, Kenneth W" , Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , linux-kernel , linux-ia64 * Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 at 17:02:07 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > do wakeup-balancing only if the wakeup-CPU is idle. > > > > this prevents excessive wakeup-balancing while the system is highly > > loaded, but helps spread out the workload on partly idle systems. > > I tested this with Volanomark on dual-processor PII Xeon -- the > results were very bad: which patch have you tested? The mail you replied to above is for patch #2, while on SMT/HT boxes it's patch #3 that is the correct approach. furthermore, which base kernel have you applied the patch to? Best would be to test the following kernels: 2.6.13-rc4 + sched-rollup 2.6.13-rc4 + sched-rollup + better-wake-balance-#3 the sched-rollup and the latest better-wake-balance patches can be found at: http://redhat.com/~mingo/scheduler-patches/ (sched-rollup is the current scheduler patch-queue in -mm. And if you have time, it would also be nice to have a 2.6.13-rc4 baseline for VolanoMark, and perhaps a 2.6.12 measurement too, so that we can see how things changed.) Ingo