Re: [rfc][patch] sched: remove smpnice

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Fri Feb 10 2006 - 02:16:03 EST

"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 03:36:17PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Suresh, Martin, Ingo, Nick and Con: please drop everything, triple-check
> > and test this:
> >
> > From: Peter Williams <pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This is a modified version of Con Kolivas's patch to add "nice" support to
> > load balancing across physical CPUs on SMP systems.
> I have couple of issues with this patch.
> a) on a lightly loaded system, this will result in higher priority job hopping
> around from one processor to another processor.. This is because of the
> code in find_busiest_group() which assumes that SCHED_LOAD_SCALE represents
> a unit process load and with nice_to_bias calculations this is no longer
> true(in the presence of non nice-0 tasks)
> My testing showed that 178.galgel in SPECfp2000 is down by ~10% when run with
> nice -20 on a 4P(8-way with HT) system compared to a nice-0 run.
> b) On a lightly loaded system, this can result in HT scheduler optimizations
> being disabled in presence of low priority tasks... in this case, they(low
> priority ones) can end up running on the same package, even in the presence
> of other idle packages.. Though this is not as serious as "a" above...

Thanks very much for discvoring those things.

That rather leaves us in a pickle wrt 2.6.16.

It looks like we back out smpnice after all?

Whatever we do, time is pressing.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at