Re: [patch] sched: improve pinned task handling again!

[Siddha, Suresh B]

On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 01:11:20PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> How important is this? Any application to real workloads? Even if
> not, I agree it would be nice to improve this more. I don't know
> if I really like this approach - I guess due to what it adds to
> fastpaths.

Ken initially observed with older kernels(2.4 kernel with Ingo's sched), it was 
happening with few hundred processes. 2.6 is not that bad and it improved
with recent fixes. It is not very important. We want to raise the flag
and see if we can comeup with a decent solution.

We changed nr_running from "unsigned long" to "unsigned int". So on 64-bit
architectures, our change to fastpath is not a big deal.

> 
> Now presumably if the all_pinned logic is working properly in the
> first place, and it is correctly causing balancing to back-off, you
> could tweak that a bit to avoid livelocks? Perhaps the all_pinned
> case should back off faster than the usual doubling of the interval,
> and be allowed to exceed max_interval?

Coming up with that number(how much to exceed) will be a big task. It depends
on number of cpus and how fast they traverse the runqueue,...

thanks,
suresh
-
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/