From: Timothy Miller <miller@techsource.com>
To: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
Cc: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>,
Rick Lindsley <ricklind@us.ibm.com>,
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: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:37:44 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4027B758.8060908@techsource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40242D14.6070908@cyberone.com.au>
Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> I like to try stick to the fairness first approach.
>
> We got quite a few complaints about unfairness when the
> scheduler used to keep 2 on one cpu and 1 on another, even in
> development kernels. I suspect that most wouldn't have known
> one way or the other if only top showed 66% each, but still.
>
Stupid question: Does the balancing consider process priority? Is it
unfair to have two lower pri tasks always on one cpu while the highest
pri of the three is always by itself?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-09 16:31 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
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 [this message]
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=4027B758.8060908@techsource.com \
--to=miller@techsource.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=dvhltc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--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