Re: balance storm

Mike Galbraith
2014-05-27T10:05:41Z

On Tue, 2014-05-27 at 11:48 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> So I suppose this is due to the select_idle_sibling() nonsense again,
> where we assumes L3 is a fair compromise between cheap enough and
> effective enough.

Nodz.

> Of course, Intel keeps growing the cpu count covered by L3 to ridiculous
> sizes, 8 cores isn't nowhere near their top silly, which shifts the
> balance, and there's always going to be pathological cases (like the
> proposed workload) where its just always going to suck eggs.

Test is as pathological as it gets. 15 core + SMT wouldn't be pretty.

-Mike