LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Gregory Haskins" <>
To: "Paul Jackson" <>
Cc: <>, <>, <>,
	<>, <>,
	<>, <>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] reworking load_balance_monitor
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:16:21 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at  1:15 PM, in message
<>, Paul Jackson <> wrote: 
> Peter wrote of:
>> the lack of rd->load_balance.
> Could you explain to me a bit what that means?
> Does this mean that the existing code would, by default (default being
> a single sched domain, covering the entire system's CPUs) load balance
> across the entire system, but with your rework, not so load balance
> there?  That seems unlikely.
> In any event, from my rather cpuset-centric perspective, there are only
> two common cases to consider.
>  1. In the default case, build_sched_domains() gets called once,
>     at init, with a cpu_map of all non-isolated CPUs, and we should
>     forever after load balance across all those non-isolated CPUs.
>  2. In some carefully managed systems using the per-cpuset
>     'sched_load_balance' flags, we tear down that first default
>     sched domain, by calling detach_destroy_domains() on it, and we
>     then setup some number of sched_domains (typically in the range
>     of two to ten, though I suppose we should design to scale to
>     hundreds of sched domains, on systems with thousands of CPUs)
>     by additional calls to build_sched_domains(), such that their
>     CPUs don't overlap (pairwise disjoint) and such that the union
>     of all their CPUs may, or may not, include all non-isolated CPUs
>     (some CPUs might be left 'out in the cold', intentionally, as
>     essentially additional isolated CPUs.)  We would then expect load
>     balancing within each of these pair-wise disjoint sched domains,
>     but not between one of them and another.

Hi Paul,
  I think it will still work as you describe.  We create a new root-domain object for each pair-wise disjoint sched-domain.  In your case (1) above, we would only have one instance of a root-domain which contains (of course) a single instance of the rd->load_balance object.  This would, in fact operate like the global variable that Peter is suggesting it replace (IIUC).  However, for case (2), we would instantiate a root-domain object per pairwise-disjoint sched-domain, and therefore each one would have its own instance of rd->load_balance.


  reply	other threads:[~2008-02-14 19:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-02-14 15:57 Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-14 15:57 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/2] sched: fair-group: rework load_balance_monitor Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-14 15:57 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/2] sched: fair-group: per root-domain load balancing Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-15 16:46   ` Gregory Haskins
2008-02-15 19:46     ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-02-19 12:42       ` Gregory Haskins
2008-02-14 16:09 ` [RFC][PATCH 0/2] reworking load_balance_monitor Gregory Haskins
2008-02-14 18:15 ` Paul Jackson
2008-02-14 19:16   ` Gregory Haskins [this message]
2008-02-18  8:24 ` Dhaval Giani

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] reworking load_balance_monitor' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).