Siddha, Suresh B wrote on Friday, April 01, 2005 8:05 PM
> On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 01:11:20PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > How important is this? Any application to real workloads? Even if
> > not, I agree it would be nice to improve this more. I don't know
> > if I really like this approach - I g
Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 01:11:20PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
How important is this? Any application to real workloads? Even if
not, I agree it would be nice to improve this more. I don't know
if I really like this approach - I guess due to what it adds to
fastpaths.
Ken ini
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 01:11:20PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> How important is this? Any application to real workloads? Even if
> not, I agree it would be nice to improve this more. I don't know
> if I really like this approach - I guess due to what it adds to
> fastpaths.
Ken initially observed
Siddha, Suresh B wrote:
This time Ken Chen brought up this issue -- No it has nothing to do with
industry db benchmark ;-)
Even with the above mentioned Nick's patch in -mm, I see system livelock's
if for example I have 7000 processes pinned onto one cpu (this is on the
fastest 8-way system I
On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:17 PM Nick Piggin wrote:
>John Hawkes explained the problem best:
> A large number of processes that are pinned to a single CPU results
> in every other CPU's load_balance() seeing this overloaded CPU as
> "busiest", yet move_tasks() never finds a task to pull
5 matches
Mail list logo
