From: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
"Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, John Hawkes <hawkes@sgi.com>,
"Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@mbligh.org>, Paul Jackson <pj@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #3
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 10:13:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050801101318.A11610@unix-os.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42EC2624.7030509@yahoo.com.au>; from nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au on Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 11:15:16AM +1000
On Sun, Jul 31, 2005 at 11:15:16AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > especially on NUMA, if the migration-target CPU (this_cpu) is not at
> > least partially idle, i'd be quite uneasy to passive balance from
> > another node. I suspect this needs numbers from Martin and John?
>
> Passive balancing cuts in only when an imbalance is becoming apparent.
> If the queue gets more imbalanced, periodic balancing will cut in,
> and that is much worse than wake balancing.
Another point to note about the current wake balance. Imbalance calculation
is not taking the complete load of the sched group into account. I think
there might be scenario's where the current wake balance will actually
result in some imbalances corrected later by periodic balancing.
thanks,
suresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-08-01 17:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ 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
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 [this message]
2005-08-08 23:18 ` Chen, Kenneth W
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=20050801101318.A11610@unix-os.sc.intel.com \
--to=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=hawkes@sgi.com \
--cc=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbligh@mbligh.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=pj@sgi.com \
/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