Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262987AbVDBEF0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Apr 2005 23:05:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262988AbVDBEF0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Apr 2005 23:05:26 -0500 Received: from fmr22.intel.com ([143.183.121.14]:63447 "EHLO scsfmr002.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262987AbVDBEFS (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Apr 2005 23:05:18 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 20:05:10 -0800 From: "Siddha, Suresh B" To: Nick Piggin Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" , mingo@elte.hu, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kenneth.w.chen@intel.com Subject: Re: [patch] sched: improve pinned task handling again! Message-ID: <20050401200509.C5598@unix-os.sc.intel.com> References: <20050401185812.A5598@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <424E0D58.1070700@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <424E0D58.1070700@yahoo.com.au>; from nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au on Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 01:11:20PM +1000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1407 Lines: 31 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/