On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:13:14PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> [PATCH 6/13] no aggressive idle balancing
> >>
> >> [PATCH 8/13] generalised CPU load averaging
> >> [PATCH 9/13] less affine wakups
> >> [PATCH 10/13] remove aggressive idle balancing
> >
> >
> > they look fine, but these are the really scary ones :-) Maybe we could
> > do #8 and #9 first, then #6+#10. But it's probably pointless to look at
> > these in isolation.
> >
>
> Oh yes, they are very scary and I guarantee they'll cause
> problems :P
By code inspection, I see an issue with this patch
[PATCH 10/13] remove aggressive idle balancing
Why are we removing cpu_and_siblings_are_idle check from active_load_balance?
In case of SMT, we want to give prioritization to an idle package while
doing active_load_balance(infact, active_load_balance will be kicked
mainly because there is an idle package)
Just the re-addition of cpu_and_siblings_are_idle check to
active_load_balance might not be enough. We somehow need to communicate
this to move_tasks, otherwise can_migrate_task will fail and we will
never be able to do active_load_balance.
thanks,
suresh
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
