Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754866AbXKPGH3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:07:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751449AbXKPGHU (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:07:20 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:59132 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751293AbXKPGHT (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:07:19 -0500 Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:07:00 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Micah Dowty Cc: Christoph Lameter , Kyle Moffett , Cyrus Massoumi , LKML Kernel , Andrew Morton , Mike Galbraith , Paul Menage , Dmitry Adamushko , Peter Williams Subject: Re: High priority tasks break SMP balancer? Message-ID: <20071116060700.GD16273@elte.hu> References: <4734F397.7080802@gmx.net> <20071110001103.GD16250@vmware.com> <2FAA6826-653E-482F-A037-C539BAEEA1DA@mac.com> <20071115191408.GA4914@vmware.com> <20071115202425.GC4914@vmware.com> <20071115213510.GA16079@vmware.com> <20071116024408.GA20322@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071116024408.GA20322@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.1.7-deb -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1152 Lines: 25 * Micah Dowty wrote: > > I am a bit at a loss as to how this could relate to the patch. This > > looks like a load balance logic issue that causes the load > > calculation to go wrong? > > My best guess is that this has something to do with the timing with > which we sample the CPU's instantaneous load when calculating the load > averages.. but I still understand only the basics of the scheduler and > SMP balancer. All I really know for sure at this point regarding your > patch is that git-bisect found it for me. hm, your code uses timeouts for this, right? The CPU load average that is used for SMP load balancing is sampled from the scheduler tick - and has been sampled from the scheduler tick for eons. v2.6.23 defaulted to a different method but v2.6.24 samples it from the tick again. So my guess is, your testcode behave similarly on 2.6.22 too, correct? Ingo - 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/