Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261893AbVDES4q (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:56:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261905AbVDESzC (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:55:02 -0400 Received: from fmr22.intel.com ([143.183.121.14]:12192 "EHLO scsfmr002.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261893AbVDESvV (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2005 14:51:21 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:51:13 -0700 From: "Siddha, Suresh B" To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.12-rc2-mm1 Message-ID: <20050405115113.A17809@unix-os.sc.intel.com> References: <20050405000524.592fc125.akpm@osdl.org> <42523F5D.7020201@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: <42523F5D.7020201@yahoo.com.au>; from nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au on Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 05:33:49PM +1000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1759 Lines: 54 On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 05:33:49PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > > +sched-remove-unnecessary-sched-domains.patch > > +sched-improve-pinned-task-handling-again.patch > [snip] > > > > CPU scheduler updates > > > > It is no problem that you picked these up for testing. But > don't merge them yet, please. > > Suresh's underlying problem with the unnecessary sched domains > is a failing of sched-balance-exec and sched-balance-fork, which That wasn't the only motivation. For example, on non-HT cpu's we shouldn't be setting up SMT sched-domain, same with NUMA domains on non-NUMA systems. > I am working on now. > > Removing unnecessary domains is a nice optimisation, but just > needs to account for a few more flags before declaring that a Can you elaborate when we require a domain with special flags but has no or only one group in it. > domain is unnecessary (not to mention this probably breaks if > isolcpus= is used). I have made some modifications to the patch I have tested my patch with "ioslcpus=" and it works just fine. > to fix these problems. > > Lastly, I'd like to be a bit less intrusive with pinned task > handling improvements. I think we can do this while still being > effective in preventing livelocks. We want to see this fixed. Please post your patch and I can let you know the test results. > > I will keep you posted with regards to the various scheduler > patches. Nick, Can you post the patches you sent me earlier to this list? 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/