On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 10:28 -0600, Joel Schopp wrote: > > There's one fundamental assumption, and one weakness in the > > implementation. > > > I'm going to guess the weakness is that it doesn't adjust the cpu power > so tasks running in SMT1 mode actually get more than they account for?
No, but you're right, if these SMTx modes are running at different frequencies then yes that needs to happen as well. The weakness is failing to do the right thing in the presence of a 'strategically' placed RT task. Suppose: Sibling0, Sibling1, Sibling2, Sibling3 idle OTHER OTHER FIFO it might not manage to migrate a task to 0 because it ends up selecting 3 as busiest. It doesn't at all influence RT placement, but it does look at nr_running (which does include RT tasks) > What's the assumption? That cpu_of(Sibling n) < cpu_of(Sibling n+1) _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
