Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:21:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:21:53 -0500 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.104]:33175 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:21:52 -0500 Message-Id: <200301162029.h0GKTmt14173@owlet.beaverton.ibm.com> To: Ingo Molnar cc: "Martin J. Bligh" , Christoph Hellwig , Robert Love , Erich Focht , Michael Hohnbaum , Andrew Theurer , linux-kernel , lse-tech Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] Re: [PATCH 2.5.58] new NUMA scheduler: fix In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:19:22 +0100." Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 12:29:48 -0800 From: Rick Lindsley Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [whether it's high frequency or not depends on the actual workload, but it can be potentially _very_ high frequency, easily on the order of 1 million times a second - then you'll call the inter-node balancer 100K times a second.] If this is due to thread creation/death, though, you might want this level of inter-node balancing (or at least checking). It could represent a lot of fork/execs that are now overloading one or more nodes. Is it reasonable to expect this sort of load on a relatively proc/thread-stable machine? Rick - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/