Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [patch] scheduler fix for 1cpu/node case

From: Mala Anand (manand@us.ibm.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 11:04:24 EST


>Are the balances you're doing on wakeup global or node-local?
The test is not done on NUMA systems.

Regards,
    Mala

   Mala Anand
   IBM Linux Technology Center - Kernel Performance
   E-mail:manand@us.ibm.com
   http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linuxperf
   http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/projects/linuxperf
   Phone:838-8088; Tie-line:678-8088

                                                                                                                                               
                      "Martin J. Bligh"
                      <mbligh@aracnet.com> To: Mala Anand/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Erich Focht <efocht@hpce.nec.com>, linux-kernel
                      Sent by: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, LSE <lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net>
                      lse-tech-admin@lists.sour cc: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>, torvalds@osdl.org
                      ceforge.net Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [patch] scheduler fix for 1cpu/node case
                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                               
                      07/29/2003 09:29 AM
                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                               

>>> If you want data supporting my assumptions: Ted Ts'o's talk at OLS
>>> shows the necessity to rebalance ASAP (even in try_to_wake_up).
>
>> If this is the patch I am thinking of, it was the (attached) one I sent
> them,
>> which did a light "push" rebalance at try_to_wake_up. Calling
> load_balance
>> at try_to_wake_up seems very heavy-weight. This patch only looks for an
> idle
>> cpu (within the same node) to wake up on before task activation, only if
> the
>> task_rq(p)->nr_running is too long. So, yes, I do believe this can be
>> important, but I think it's only called for when we have an idle cpu.
>
> The patch that you sent to Rajan didn't yield any improvement on
> specjappserver so we did not include that in the ols paper. What
> is described in the ols paper is "calling load-balance" from
> try-to-wake-up. Both calling load-balance from try-to-wakeup and
> the "light push" rebalance at try_to_wake_up are already done in
> Andrea's 0(1) scheduler patch.

Are the balances you're doing on wakeup global or node-local?

M.

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01
_______________________________________________
Lse-tech mailing list
Lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lse-tech

-
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 : Thu Jul 31 2003 - 22:00:41 EST