Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>I repeated the tests with your B0 version and it's still not
>>satisfying. Maybe too aggressive NODE_REBALANCE_IDLE_TICK, maybe the
>>difference is that the other calls of load_balance() never have the
>>chance to balance across nodes.
>
>
> Nope, I found the problem. The topo cleanups are broken - we end up
> taking all mem accesses, etc to node 0.
>
> Use the second half of the patch (the splitup I already posted),
> and fix the obvious compile error. Works fine now ;-)
>
> Matt, you know the topo stuff better than anyone. Can you take a look
> at the cleanup Ingo did, and see if it's easily fixable?
Umm.. most of it looks clean. I'm not really sure what the
__cpu_to_node_mask(cpu) macro is supposed to do? it looks to be just an
alias for the __node_to_cpu_mask() macro, which makes little sense to
me. That's the only thing that immediately sticks out. I'm doubly
confused as to why it's defined twice in include/linux/topology.h?
-Matt
>
> M.
>
> PS. Ingo - I love the restructuring of the scheduler bits.
> I think we need > 2 multipler though ... I set it to 10 for now.
> Tuning will tell ...
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:17 EST