From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946990AbWKKCvU (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:51:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1946991AbWKKCvU (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:51:20 -0500 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19]:38882 "EHLO omx2.sgi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946990AbWKKCvT (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:51:19 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:51:10 -0800 (PST) From: Christoph Lameter To: "Chen, Kenneth W" cc: Ingo Molnar , "Siddha, Suresh B" , akpm@osdl.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: RE: + sched-use-tasklet-to-call-balancing.patch added to -mm tree In-Reply-To: <000701c70535$dc0d8e70$ff0da8c0@amr.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <000701c70535$dc0d8e70$ff0da8c0@amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > So designate only one CPU within a domain to do load balance between groups > for that specific sched domain should in theory fix the 2nd problem you > identified. Did you get a chance to look at the patch Suresh posted? Yes, I am still thinking about how this would work. This would mean that the first cpu on a system would move busy processes to itself from all 1023 other processes? That does not sound appealing. Processes in the allnodes domain would move to processor #0. The next lower layer are the nodes groups. Not all of the groups at that layer contain processor #0. So we would never move processes into those sched domains?