Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 05:07:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 05:07:25 -0500 Received: from smtp3.vol.cz ([195.250.128.83]:32517 "EHLO smtp3.vol.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 05:06:38 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 23:16:19 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Alan Cox Cc: Davide Libenzi , Rusty Russell , anton@samba.org, davej@suse.de, marcelo@conectiva.com.br, lkml , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.17-pre5 Message-ID: <20011219231619.A120@elf.ucw.cz> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > Using the scheduler i'm working on and setting a trigger load level of 2, > > as soon as the idle is scheduled it'll go to grab the task waiting on the > > other cpu and it'll make it running. > > That rapidly gets you thrashing around as I suspect you've found. > > I'm currently using the following rule in wake up > > if(current->mm->runnable > 0) /* One already running ? */ > cpu = current->mm->last_cpu; Is this really a win? I mean, if I have two tasks that can run from L2 cache, I want them on different physical CPUs even if they share current->mm, no? Pavel -- "I do not steal MS software. It is not worth it." -- Pavel Kankovsky - 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/