From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265055AbUHRMug (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:50:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266147AbUHRMug (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:50:36 -0400 Received: from smtp014.mail.yahoo.com ([216.136.173.58]:44936 "HELO smtp014.mail.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265055AbUHRMue (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:50:34 -0400 Message-ID: <41235090.8090909@yahoo.com.au> Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:50:24 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040810 Debian/1.7.2-2 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Simon Derr CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: sched_setaffinity() and load balancing References: In-Reply-To: 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 Simon Derr wrote: > Hello, > > This is probably a known issue, or even maybe the expected behaviour, but > it seems that using sched_setaffinity() can severely disturb load > balancing on recent kernels. My tests are with 2.6.8-rc3 but I suppose > other kernel versions behave the same way. > Yep, it shouldn't be anything new. You could justify the problem by saying that by using setaffinity, the user has asserted that they know best and so it is OK for the balancer to crap itself. Ideally it would be handled nicely, but not a lot of people care at the moment.