From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265237AbUBIQb6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:31:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265242AbUBIQb5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:31:57 -0500 Received: from kinesis.swishmail.com ([209.10.110.86]:58637 "EHLO kinesis.swishmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265237AbUBIQb4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:31:56 -0500 Message-ID: <4027B758.8060908@techsource.com> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:37:44 -0500 From: Timothy Miller MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Piggin CC: "Martin J. Bligh" , Rick Lindsley , Anton Blanchard , akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dvhltc@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Load balancing problem in 2.6.2-mm1 References: <200402062311.i16NBdF14365@owlet.beaverton.ibm.com> <40242152.5030606@cyberone.com.au> <231480000.1076110387@flay> <4024261E.5070702@cyberone.com.au> <232690000.1076111266@flay> <40242D14.6070908@cyberone.com.au> In-Reply-To: <40242D14.6070908@cyberone.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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?