From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 01:46:19 +0000 Subject: Re: Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags Message-Id: <42E98A6B.2090305@yahoo.com.au> List-Id: References: <200507290139.j6T1dNg03701@unix-os.sc.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <200507290139.j6T1dNg03701@unix-os.sc.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Chen, Kenneth W" Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Chen, Kenneth W wrote: >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? > > Well the normal load balancing path treats all tasks the same, while the wake path knows if a CPU is waking a remote task and can attempt to maximise the number of local wakeups. >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) > > I'd like to try making them less aggressive first if possible. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com