Re: newidle balancing in NUMA domain?

[Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>]

On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 09:40 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 07:53 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 04:53:37PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 16:29 +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > 
> > > > So basically about the least well performing or scalable possible
> > > > software architecture. This is exactly the wrong thing to optimise
> > > > for, guys.
> > > 
> > > Hm.  Isn't fork/exec our daily bread?
> > 
> > No. Not for handing out tiny chunks of work and attempting to do
> > them in parallel. There is this thing called Amdahl's law, and if
> > you write a parallel program that wantonly uses the heaviest
> > possible primitives in its serial sections, then it doesn't deserve
> > to go fast.
> 
> OK by me.  A bit if idle time for kbuild is easily cured with telling
> make to emit more jobs, so there's enough little jobs to go around.
> 
> If x264 is declared dainbramaged, that's fine with me too.

(P.S. I don't want to have to explain to users of any such thread happy
applications why they suck rocks under Linux though)