Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751276AbVJ0C2k (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:28:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751281AbVJ0C2k (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:28:40 -0400 Received: from fmr22.intel.com ([143.183.121.14]:1953 "EHLO scsfmr002.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751276AbVJ0C2k (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:28:40 -0400 Message-Id: <200510270228.j9R2SWg27777@unix-os.sc.intel.com> From: "Chen, Kenneth W" To: , Subject: Weird schedule delay time for cache_reap() Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:28:32 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353 Thread-Index: AcXaniAXcF1hmKLkTk6eyuWxXlMDEw== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 931 Lines: 30 I can't convince myself that the 2nd argument in schedule_delayed_work called from cache_reap() function make any sense: static void cache_reap(void *unused) { ... check_irq_on(); up(&cache_chain_sem); drain_remote_pages(); /* Setup the next iteration */ schedule_delayed_work(&__get_cpu_var(reap_work), REAPTIMEOUT_CPUC + smp_processor_id()); } Suppose one have a lucky 1024-processor big iron numa box, cpu0 will do cache_reap every 2 sec (REAPTIMEOUT_CPUC = 2*HZ). cpu512 will do cache_reap every 4 sec, cpu1023 will do cache_reap every 6 sec. Is the skew intentional on different CPU? Why different interval for different cpu#? - 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/