Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758628AbXFSKeu (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 06:34:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755010AbXFSKeo (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 06:34:44 -0400 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:45238 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751939AbXFSKen (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2007 06:34:43 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:13:14 +0530 From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri To: Ingo Molnar Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , Thomas Gleixner , Dinakar Guniguntala , Dmitry Adamushko , suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, pwil3058@bigpond.net.au, clameter@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: v2.6.21.4-rt11 Message-ID: <20070619104314.GF17865@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <20070613185522.GA27335@elte.hu> <20070613233910.GJ8125@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070615144535.GA12078@elte.hu> <20070615151452.GC9301@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070615195545.GA28872@elte.hu> <20070616011605.GH9301@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070616084434.GG2559@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070616161213.GA2994@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070618151215.GA9750@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20070619090430.GA7471@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070619090430.GA7471@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 942 Lines: 23 On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:04:30AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > I'm wondering, why did this trigger under CFS and not on mainline? I thought Paul had seen the same problem with 2.6.21.5. I will try a more recent mainline (2.6.22-rc5 maybe) after I get hold of the problem machine and report later today. If there is any difference, it should be because of the reported topology by low-level platform code. In the problem case, each CPU was being reported to be a separate node (CONFIG_NUMA enabled) which caused idle_balance() to stop load-balance lookups at cpu/node level itself. > Mainline seems to have a similar problem in idle_balance() too, or am i > misreading it? -- Regards, vatsa - 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/