From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751012AbVHJAn4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:43:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751013AbVHJAn4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:43:56 -0400 Received: from smtp203.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([216.136.129.93]:15251 "HELO smtp203.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751011AbVHJAnz (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:43:55 -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=OOujcu0VHEFqAnalsBgTLt0CsPxfq2G5wGg936LzK9xQyMv0h8Bzx/QiEPF9yI6JIg86V30Ty9XvY0CyJhOgo43qg1aQQhYz5ejzBvlC4Be+TYrQE81zWq9TgvAKJ6In76ibNpj+9hFwBWpqn/HQniNZ49luxeouO5LqNEkSiAE= ; Message-ID: <42F94DC1.5040105@yahoo.com.au> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 10:43:45 +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: "Siddha, Suresh B" CC: "Martin J. Bligh" , Darren Hart , "lkml," , "Piggin, Nick" , "Dobson, Matt" , mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: sched_domains SD_BALANCE_FORK and sched_balance_self References: <42F3F669.2080101@us.ibm.com> <20050809150331.A1938@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <1187700000.1123625998@flay> <20050809174042.C1938@unix-os.sc.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20050809174042.C1938@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 Siddha, Suresh B wrote: >On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:19:58PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > >>--On Tuesday, August 09, 2005 15:03:32 -0700 "Siddha, Suresh B" wrote: >> >> >>Balance on clone make some sort of sense, since you know they're not >>going to exec afterwards. We've thrashed through this many times before >>and decided that unless there was an explicit hint from userspace, >>balance on fork was not a good thing to do in the general case. Not only >>based on a large range of testing, but also previous experience from other >>Unix's. What new data came forth to change this? >> > >I agree with you. I will let Nick(the author) have a take at this. > > Sorry I've taken a while with this. Darren, I'll reply to you soon. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com