Re: [Lse-tech] [patch] sched-domain cleanups, sched-2.6.5-rc2-mm2-A3
From: Martin J. Bligh
Date: Thu Mar 25 2004 - 17:36:14 EST
>> Exec time balancing is a *lot* more efficient, it just doesn't work
>> for things that don't exec ... cloned threads would certainly be one
> yeah - exec-balancing is a clear thing. fork/clone time balancing is
> alot less clear.
OK, well it *looks* to me from a quick look at your patch like
sched_balance_context will rebalance at both fork *and* exec time.
That seems like a bad plan, but maybe I'm misreading it.
Can we hold off on changing the fork/exec time balancing until we've
come to a plan as to what should actually be done with it? Unless we're
giving it some hint from userspace, it's frigging hard to be sure if
it's going to exec or not - and the vast majority of things do.
There was a really good reason why the code is currently set up that
way, it's not some random accident ;-)
Clone is a much more interesting case, though at the time, I consciously
decided NOT to do that, as we really mostly want threads on the same
node. The exception is the case where we have one app with lots of threads,
and nothing much else running on the system ... I tend to think of that
as an artificial benchmark situation, but maybe that's not fair. We
probably need to just do a more conservative version of the cross-node
rebalance at fork time.
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/