On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 03:35:35PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > Right. Plus, the original mail mentioned that it was hitting all 8
> > CPUs, which is a pretty good example of braindead scheduler behaviour.
>
> There was a discussion about process spinning among idle CPUs a couple of
> months ago.
> Mike, did you code the patch that stick the task to an idle between the
> send-IPI and the idle wakeup ?
> At that time we simply left the issue unaddressed.
I believe the 'quick and dirty' patches we came up with substantially
increased context switch times for this benchmark (doubled them).
The reason is that you needed to add IPI time to the context switch
time. Therefore, I did not actively pursue getting these accepted. :)
It appears that something in the 2.2 scheduler did a much better
job of handling this situation. I haven't looked at the 2.2 code.
Does anyone know what feature of the 2.2 scheduler was more successful
in keeping tasks on the CPUs on which they previously executed?
Also, why was that code removed from 2.4? I can research, but I
suspect someone here has firsthand knowledge.
-- Mike Kravetz kravetz@us.ibm.com IBM Peace, Love and Linux Technology Center - 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 : Sun Oct 07 2001 - 21:00:34 EST