From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262181AbVG1Xs7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:48:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262160AbVG1Xs6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:48:58 -0400 Received: from fmr23.intel.com ([143.183.121.15]:32226 "EHLO scsfmr003.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262171AbVG1XsZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:48:25 -0400 Message-Id: <200507282348.j6SNmLg02429@unix-os.sc.intel.com> From: "Chen, Kenneth W" To: "'Nick Piggin'" Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , , Subject: RE: Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:48:20 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: AcWTzO/Z0mbz+OreSQiOKP8Bp6ovgQAAPQOA In-Reply-To: <42E96B8C.6010005@yahoo.com.au> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Nick Piggin wrote on Thursday, July 28, 2005 4:35 PM > Wake balancing provides an opportunity to provide some input bias > into the load balancer. > > For example, if you started 100 pairs of tasks which communicate > through a pipe. On a 2 CPU system without wake balancing, probably > half of the pairs will be on different CPUs. With wake balancing, > it should be much better. Shouldn't the pipe code use synchronous wakeup? > I hear you might be having problems with recent 2.6.13 kernels? If so, > it would be really good to have a look that before 2.6.13 goes out the > door. Yes I do :-(, apparently bumping up cache_hot_time won't give us the performance boost we used to see. - Ken