On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 04:24:59PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I'm currently using the following rule in wake up
> >
> > if(current->mm->runnable > 0) /* One already running ? */
> > cpu = current->mm->last_cpu;
> > else
> > cpu = idle_cpu();
> > else
> > cpu = cpu_num[fast_fl1(runnable_set)]
> >
> > that is
> > If we are running threads with this mm on a cpu throw them at the
> > same core
> > If there is an idle CPU use it
> > Take the mask of currently executing priority levels, find the last
> > set bit (lowest pri) being executed, and look up a cpu running at
> > that priority
> >
> > Then the idle stealing code will do the rest of the balancing, but at least
> > it converges towards each mm living on one cpu core.
>
> This implies that the idle loop will poll looking for work to do.
> Is that correct? Davide's scheduler also does this. I believe
> the current default idle loop (at least for i386) does as little
> as possible and stops execting instructions. Comments in the code
> mention power consumption. Should we be concerned with this?
My idea is not to poll ( due energy issues ) but to wake up idles (
kernel/timer.c ) at every timer tick to let them monitor the overall
balancing status.
- Davide
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 15 2001 - 21:00:16 EST