Re: High priority tasks break SMP balancer?

[Christoph Lameter]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Micah Dowty wrote:

> 2.6.17 -
> 2.6.19 -
> 2.6.19.7 -
> 2.6.20 +
> 2.6.21 +
> 2.6.22 -
> 2.6.23.1 +
> 
> Here a "-" means that the problem does not occur (my test program uses
> 100% of both CPUs) and a "+" means that the test program leaves one
> CPU mostly idle.
> 
> Unless I've made a mistake, 2.6.22 seems like the outlier rather than
> 2.6.23. Is this inconsistent with the scheduler tick hypothesis?

Siddha fixed an issue with the jiffy accounting in for the softirq 
approach in.22 (vague recall maybe not exactly that version). This may be 
consistent with an issue that was fixed and now surfaces because of 
something else.

-
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/