On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 18:08 -0700, Siddha, Suresh B wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 03:11:12AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Using the attached patch, a puny dual PIII-650 with ~400MB RAM swapped > > itself to death after 20000 infinite loop tasks had been pinned to one > > of the CPUs. See how you go. > > Its goes well beyond the initial 7000 number I mentioned. Thanks. >
OK, good thanks for testing that. I'll send it to Andrew. > One side-effect of this patch is: for example we have only two processes > running on a cpu and both are pinned to that cpu. If someone comes and > changes the affinity of one of these processes to all cpu's in the system, > then it might take MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL before this process moves to an idle > cpu. > Yeah, that is true. OTOH it is a bit of a special case, and our multiprocessor scheduling in general practically shuts down when we have a situation with a single queue with a lot of pinned tasks. What did I have for MAX_PINNED_INTERVAL? ~1second. I guess that could come down a bit - maybe 1/4 or 1/2 a second? I think it is a "good enough for now" kind of situation. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. - 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/
