Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:43:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:43:46 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.51]:33296 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 21:43:35 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:49:16 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: Rusty Russell cc: Manfred Spraul , , Subject: Re: cross-cpu balancing with the new scheduler In-Reply-To: <20020114131925.4fcbd127.rusty@rustcorp.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:01:40 +0100 > Manfred Spraul wrote: > > > Is it possible that the inter-cpu balancing is broken in 2.5.2-pre11? > > > > eatcpu is a simple cpu hog ("for(;;);"). Dual CPU i386. > > > > $nice -19 ./eatcpu&; > > > > $nice -19 ./eatcpu&; > > > > $./eatcpu&. > > > > IMHO it should be > > * both niced process run on one cpu. > > * the non-niced process runs with a 100% timeslice. > > > > But it's the other way around: > > One niced process runs with 100%. The non-niced process with 50%, and > > the second niced process with 50%. > > This could be fixed by making "nr_running" closer to a "priority sum". I've a very simple phrase when QA is bugging me with these corner cases : "As Designed" It's much much better than adding code and "Return To QA" :-) I tried priority balancing in BMQS but i still prefer "As Designed" ... - Davide - 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/