Re: [PATCH] Load balancing problem in 2.6.2-mm1

[Nick Piggin]

Martin J. Bligh wrote:

> > > Not sure how true that turns out to be in practice ... probably depends
> > > heavily on both the workload (how heavily it's using the cache) and the
> > > chip (larger caches have proportionately more to lose).
> > >
> > > As we go forward in time, cache warmth gets increasingly important, as
> > > CPUs accelerate speeds quicker than memory. Cache sizes also get larger.
> > > I'd really like us to be conservative here - the unfairness thing is 
> > > really hard to hit anyway - you need a static number of processes that
> > > don't ever block on IO or anything.
> > Can we keep current behaviour default, and if arches want to
> > override it they can? And if someone one day does testing to
> > show it really isn't a good idea, then we can change the default.
>
> Well, that should be a pretty easy test to do. I'll try it.

OK, use the revision of Rick's patch I posted, and don't use
CONFIG_SCHED_SMT because I think there is a problem with it.

Thanks
Nick

-
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/