Re: sched_domains SD_BALANCE_FORK and sched_balance_self

2005-08-09 Thread Nick Piggin
Siddha, Suresh B wrote: On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:19:58PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: --On Tuesday, August 09, 2005 15:03:32 -0700 "Siddha, Suresh B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Balance on clone make some sort of sense, since you know they're not going to exec afterwards. We've thrashed t

Re: sched_domains SD_BALANCE_FORK and sched_balance_self

2005-08-09 Thread Siddha, Suresh B
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 03:19:58PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > --On Tuesday, August 09, 2005 15:03:32 -0700 "Siddha, Suresh B" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:29:45PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > >> I have some concerns as to the intent vs. actual implementation

Re: sched_domains SD_BALANCE_FORK and sched_balance_self

2005-08-09 Thread Martin J. Bligh
--On Tuesday, August 09, 2005 15:03:32 -0700 "Siddha, Suresh B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:29:45PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: >> I have some concerns as to the intent vs. actual implementation of >> SD_BALANCE_FORK and the sched_balance_fork() routine. > > Intent

Re: sched_domains SD_BALANCE_FORK and sched_balance_self

2005-08-09 Thread Siddha, Suresh B
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:29:45PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote: > I have some concerns as to the intent vs. actual implementation of > SD_BALANCE_FORK and the sched_balance_fork() routine. Intent and implementation match. Problem is with the intent ;-) This has the intent info. http://www.kernel.

sched_domains SD_BALANCE_FORK and sched_balance_self

2005-08-05 Thread Darren Hart
First off, apologies for not reviewing this code at 2.6.12-mm2, I was tied up with other things. I have some concerns as to the intent vs. actual implementation of SD_BALANCE_FORK and the sched_balance_fork() routine. ARCHS=i386,x86_64,ia64 First, iirc SD_NODE_INIT initializes the sched_doma