From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261707AbVG2Bqg (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:46:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261781AbVG2Bqc (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:46:32 -0400 Received: from smtp207.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([216.136.129.97]:35426 "HELO smtp207.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261707AbVG2Bqa (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jul 2005 21:46:30 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=QZf1KkXgy/0JqoyGP7QQlOtDrihFmxXFPlJmorZqN6LGdYQeK330YWD/WyoPw/sOhKLhCnfxsWDr4e4dRpP1i0aFzklQ/EfhLiWp08IiGiDtTBX+B/LrwDGVovF4wcetX6XaJN+g5NahS0qH1AmyhmZTe127GPHUDtF+O71AJXg= ; Message-ID: <42E98A6B.2090305@yahoo.com.au> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 11:46:19 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050513 Debian/1.7.8-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Chen, Kenneth W" CC: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags References: <200507290139.j6T1dNg03701@unix-os.sc.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <200507290139.j6T1dNg03701@unix-os.sc.intel.com> 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 Chen, Kenneth W wrote: >Nick Piggin wrote on Thursday, July 28, 2005 6:25 PM > >>Well pipes are just an example. It could be any type of communication. >>What's more, even the synchronous wakeup uses the wake balancing path >>(although that could be modified to only do wake balancing for synch >>wakeups, I'd have to be convinced we should special case pipes and not >>eg. semaphores or AF_UNIX sockets). >> > > >Why is the normal load balance path not enough (or not be able to do the >right thing)? The reblance_tick and idle_balance ought be enough to take >care of the imbalance. What makes load balancing in wake up path so special? > > Well the normal load balancing path treats all tasks the same, while the wake path knows if a CPU is waking a remote task and can attempt to maximise the number of local wakeups. >Oh, I'd like to hear your opinion on what to do with these two flags, make >them runtime configurable? (I'm of the opinion to delete them altogether) > > I'd like to try making them less aggressive first if possible. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com