On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:45:06AM -0700, da...@lang.hm wrote: > On Thu, 27 Sep 2012, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > >On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 09:48 -0700, da...@lang.hm wrote: > >>I think you are bing too smart for your own good. you don't know if it's > >>best to move them further apart or not. > > > >Well yes and no.. You're right, however in general the load-balancer has > >always tried to not use (SMT) siblings whenever possible, in that regard > >not using an idle sibling is consistent here. > > > >Also, for short running tasks the wakeup balancing is typically all we > >have, the 'big' periodic load-balancer will 'never' see them, making the > >multiple moves argument hard. > > For the initial starup of a new process, finding as idle and remote > a core to start on (minimum sharing with existing processes) is > probably the smart thing to do.
Right, but we don't schedule to the SMT siblings, as Peter says above. So we can't get to the case where two SMT siblings are not overloaded and the processes remain on the same L2. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
