Re: [PATCH] Load balancing problem in 2.6.2-mm1

[Martin J. Bligh]

>> Not sure how true that turns out to be in practice ... probably depends
>> heavily on both the workload (how heavily it's using the cache) and the
>> chip (larger caches have proportionately more to lose).
>> 
>> As we go forward in time, cache warmth gets increasingly important, as
>> CPUs accelerate speeds quicker than memory. Cache sizes also get larger.
>> I'd really like us to be conservative here - the unfairness thing is 
>> really hard to hit anyway - you need a static number of processes that
>> don't ever block on IO or anything.
> 
> Can we keep current behaviour default, and if arches want to
> override it they can? And if someone one day does testing to
> show it really isn't a good idea, then we can change the default.

Well, that should be a pretty easy test to do. I'll try it.

M.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/