Re: Database regression due to scheduler changes ?

[Martin J. Bligh]

>> I would also take a look at removing SD_WAKE_IDLE from the flags.
>> This flag should make balancing more aggressive, but it can have
>> problems when applied to a NUMA domain due to too much task
>> movement.
> 
> I was wondering how ppc64 ended up with different parameters in the NODE
> definitions (added SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE and SD_WAKE_IDLE)	and it looks
> like it was Andrew :)
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/11/2/205
> 
> It looks like balancing was not agressive enough on his workload too.
> Im a bit uneasy with only ppc64 having the two flags though.
> 
> Im also considering adding balance on fork for ppc64, it seems like a
> lot of people like to run stream like benchmarks and Im getting tired of
> telling them to lock their threads down to cpus.

Please don't screw up everything else just for stream. It's a silly 
frigging benchmark. There's very little real-world stuff that really
needs balance on fork, as opposed to balance on clone, and it'll slow
down everything else.

M.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/