Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932302AbWAZMZZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:25:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932307AbWAZMZZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:25:25 -0500 Received: from mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.190]:32705 "EHLO mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932302AbWAZMZY (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:25:24 -0500 From: Con Kolivas To: "Siddha, Suresh B" Subject: Re: smp 'nice' bias support breaks scheduler behavior Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:25:04 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9 Cc: mingo@elte.hu, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20060126025220.B8521@unix-os.sc.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20060126025220.B8521@unix-os.sc.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200601262325.05296.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1750 Lines: 49 On Thursday 26 January 2006 21:52, Siddha, Suresh B wrote: > Con, > > > [PATCH] sched: implement nice support across physical cpus on SMP > > I don't see imbalance calculations in find_busiest_group() take > prio_bias into account. This will result in wrong imbalance value and > will cause issues. in 2.6.16-rc1: find_busiest_group(.... load = __target_load(i, load_idx, idle); else load = __source_load(i, load_idx, idle); where __target_load and __source_load is where we take into account prio_bias. I'm not sure which code you're looking at, but Peter Williams is working on rewriting the smp nice balancing code in -mm at the moment so that is quite different from current linus tree. Con > > For example on a DP system with HT, if there are three runnable processes > (simple infinite loop with same nice value), this patch is resulting in > bouncing of these 3 processes from one processor to another...Lets assume > if the 3 processes are scheduled as 2 in package-0 and 1 in package1.. > Now when the busy processor on package-1 does load balance and as > imbalance doesn't take "prio_bias" into account, this will kick active > load balance on package-0.. And this is continuing for ever, resulting > in bouncing from one processor to another. > > Even when the system is completely loaded and if there is an imbalance, > this patch causes wrong imabalance counts and cause unoptimized > movements. > > Do you want to look into this and post a patch for 2.6.16? > > 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/