From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>,
Rick Lindsley <ricklind@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dvhltc@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Load balancing problem in 2.6.2-mm1
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:33:07 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <231480000.1076110387@flay> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40242152.5030606@cyberone.com.au>
> From a later email ....
>
> Hopefully just tending to round down more would damp it better.
> *imbalance = (*imbalance + SCHED_LOAD_SCALE/2) >> SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT;
> Or even remove the addition all together.
I'd side with just removing the addition alltogether ...
>>Moreover, as Rick pointed out, it's particularly futile over idle cpus ;-)
>
> I don't follow...
If CPU 7 has 1 task, and cpu 8 has 0 tasks, there's an imbalance of 1.
There is no point whatsoever in bouncing that task back and forth
between cpu 7 and 8 - it just makes things slower, and trashes the cache.
There's *no* fairness issue here.
If CPU 8 has 2 tasks, and cpu 1 has 1 task, there's an imbalance of 1.
*If* that imbalance persists (and it probably won't, given tasks being
created, destroyed, and blocking for IO), we may want to rotate that
to 1 vs 2, and then back to 2 vs 1, etc. in the interests of fairness,
even though it's slower throughput overall.
However, my point is that we shouldn't do that as agressively (in terms
of how long the imbalance persists for) as we should for loads of 3 vs 1 -
that's a "real" imbalance, not just a fairness problem.
M.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-06 23:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-06 9:24 [PATCH] Load balancing problem in 2.6.2-mm1 Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 9:38 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 18:13 ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 21:57 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 22:30 ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 22:40 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 22:49 ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 23:08 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 10:30 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-06 18:15 ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 18:39 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 22:02 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 22:34 ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 22:48 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 22:42 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 22:53 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 23:11 ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-06 23:20 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 23:33 ` Martin J. Bligh [this message]
2004-02-06 23:41 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-06 23:47 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-07 0:11 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-07 0:25 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-07 0:31 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-07 9:50 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-08 0:40 ` Rick Lindsley
2004-02-08 1:12 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-08 1:21 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-08 1:41 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-08 3:20 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-08 3:57 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-08 4:05 ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-08 12:14 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-08 1:22 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-09 16:37 ` Timothy Miller
2004-02-09 16:43 ` Martin J. Bligh
2004-02-06 18:33 ` Martin J. Bligh
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=231480000.1076110387@flay \
--to=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
--cc=ricklind@us.ibm.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