Re: [PATCH] Load balancing problem in 2.6.2-mm1

[Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>]

Martin J. Bligh wrote:

>>>Not sure how true that turns out to be in practice ... probably depends
>>>heavily on both the workload (how heavily it's using the cache) and the
>>>chip (larger caches have proportionately more to lose).
>>>
>>>As we go forward in time, cache warmth gets increasingly important, as
>>>CPUs accelerate speeds quicker than memory. Cache sizes also get larger.
>>>I'd really like us to be conservative here - the unfairness thing is 
>>>really hard to hit anyway - you need a static number of processes that
>>>don't ever block on IO or anything.
>>>
>>Can we keep current behaviour default, and if arches want to
>>override it they can? And if someone one day does testing to
>>show it really isn't a good idea, then we can change the default.
>>
>
>Well, that should be a pretty easy test to do. I'll try it.
>
>

OK, use the revision of Rick's patch I posted, and don't use
CONFIG_SCHED_SMT because I think there is a problem with it.

Thanks
Nick