* Make sure nothing changed since we checked the
* runqueue length.
*/
- if (busiest->nr_running <= nr_running + 1) {
+ if (busiest->nr_running <= nr_running) {
spin_unlock(&busiest->lock);
busiest = NULL;
}
OK, thanks for the explanation, then disregard this part of the patch, the
other two are still valid I think.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>[...] However, I noticed on my 2xSMP system that quite unbalanced loads
>>weren't getting even CPU time best example - 3 processes in busywait
>>loops - one would get 100% of one cpu while two would get 50% each of
>>the other.
>>
>
>this was done intentionally, and this scenario (1+2 tasks) is the very
>worst scenario. The problem is that by trying to balance all 3 tasks we
>now have 3 tasks that trash their cache going from one CPU to another.
>(this is what happens with your patch - even with another approach we'd
>have to trash at least one task)
>
>By keeping 2 tasks on one CPU and 1 task on the other CPU we avoid
>cross-CPU migration of threads. Think about the 2+3 or 4+5 tasks case
>rather, do we want absolutely perfect balancing, or good SMP affinity and
>good combined performance?
>
> Ingo
>
>
>
>
-
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 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:37 EST