Re: Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags

From: Nick Piggin
Date: Thu Jul 28 2005 - 20:47:59 EST

Chen, Kenneth W wrote:

Nick Piggin wrote on Thursday, July 28, 2005 6:25 PM

Well pipes are just an example. It could be any type of communication.
What's more, even the synchronous wakeup uses the wake balancing path
(although that could be modified to only do wake balancing for synch
wakeups, I'd have to be convinced we should special case pipes and not
eg. semaphores or AF_UNIX sockets).

Why is the normal load balance path not enough (or not be able to do the
right thing)? The reblance_tick and idle_balance ought be enough to take
care of the imbalance. What makes load balancing in wake up path so special?

Well the normal load balancing path treats all tasks the same, while
the wake path knows if a CPU is waking a remote task and can attempt
to maximise the number of local wakeups.

Oh, I'd like to hear your opinion on what to do with these two flags, make
them runtime configurable? (I'm of the opinion to delete them altogether)

I'd like to try making them less aggressive first if possible.

Send instant messages to your online friends -
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at