Re: [Lse-tech] [patch] sched-domain cleanups, sched-2.6.5-rc2-mm2-A3
From: Martin J. Bligh
Date: Tue Mar 30 2004 - 02:20:43 EST
> We are not going to go back to the wild balancing that
> numasched does (I have some benchmarks where sched-domains
> reduces cross node task movement by several orders of
Agreed, I think that'd be a fatal mistake ...
> So the other option is to do balance on clone
> across NUMA nodes, and make it very sensitive to imbalance.
> Or probably better to make it easy to balance off to an idle
> CPU, but much more difficult to balance off to a busy CPU.
I think that's correct, but we need to be careful. We really, really
do want to try to keep threads on the same node *if* we have enough
processes around to keep the machine busy. Because we don't balance
on fork, we make a reasonable job of that today, but we should probably
be more reluctant on rebalance than we are.
It's when we have less processes than nodes that we want to spread things
around. That's a difficult balance to strike (and exactly why I wimped
out on it originally ;-)).
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/