Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S269077AbUJERZ5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2004 13:25:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S269100AbUJERZ4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2004 13:25:56 -0400 Received: from fmr04.intel.com ([143.183.121.6]:10419 "EHLO caduceus.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S269077AbUJERZf (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2004 13:25:35 -0400 Message-Id: <200410051724.i95HOs627803@unix-os.sc.intel.com> From: "Chen, Kenneth W" To: "'Ingo Molnar'" , "Con Kolivas" Cc: , "Andrew Morton" Subject: RE: bug in sched.c:activate_task() Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 10:25:01 -0700 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcSqqEli6RExtJ3bQte0JntDx1ykoQAVrRww In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1041 Lines: 27 Ingo Molnar wrote on Monday, October 04, 2004 11:55 PM > On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > unsigned long long delta = now - next->timestamp; > > > > if (next->activated == 1) > > delta = delta * (ON_RUNQUEUE_WEIGHT * 128 / 100) / 128; > > > > is in schedule() before we update the timestamp, no? > > indeed ... so the patch is just random incorrect damage that happened to > distrub the scheduler fixing some balancing problem. Kenneth, what > precisely is the balancing problem you are seeing? We are seeing truck load of move_task() which was originated from newly idle load balance. The problem is load balancing going nuts moving tons of tasks around and what we are seeing is cache misses for the application shots up to the roof and suffering from cache threshing. - Ken - 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/