From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762179AbXGXRLT (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:11:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756040AbXGXRLK (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:11:10 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:30239 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755635AbXGXRLJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:11:09 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.16,574,1175497200"; d="scan'208";a="272125597" Subject: Re: [RFC] scheduler: improve SMP fairness in CFS From: "Li, Tong N" To: Chris Snook Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <46A5B35F.90103@redhat.com> References: <46A53C88.6060006@redhat.com> <46A5B35F.90103@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:11:07 -0700 Message-Id: <1185297067.7737.5.camel@tongli.jf.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.2 (2.10.2-3.fc7) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Jul 2007 17:11:08.0145 (UTC) FILETIME=[A03EBE10:01C7CE15] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 04:07 -0400, Chris Snook wrote: > To clarify, I'm not suggesting that the "balance with cpu (x+1)%n only" > algorithm is the only way to do this. Rather, I'm pointing out that > even an extremely simple algorithm can give you fair loading when you > already have CFS managing the runqueues. There are countless more > sophisticated ways we could do this without using global locking, or > possibly without any locking at all, other than the locking we already > use during migration. > > -- Chris Yes, as Andi and Chris also pointed out, I'll think about if global synchronization can be removed or relaxed. Thanks, tong