On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 16:22 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:40:46PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > No no, that's not restricted to one node. It's just overloaded because > > > I turned balancing off at the NODE domain level. > > > > Which shows only that I was multitasking, and in a rush. Boy was that > > dumb. Hohum. > > Ok, let's take a step back and slow it down a bit so that people like me > can understand it: you want to try it with disabled load balancing on > the node level, AFAICT. But with that many tasks, perf will suck anyway, > no? Unless you want to benchmark the numa-aware aspect and see whether > load balancing on the node level feels differently, perf-wise?
The broken thought was, since it's not wakeup path, stop node balance.. but killing all of it killed FORK/EXEC balance, oops. I think I'm done with this thing though. See mail I just sent. There are better things to do than letting box jerk my chain endlessly ;-) -Mike -- 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/
