linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/numa: do load balance between remote nodes

To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/numa: do load balance between remote nodes
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 08:33:28 +0800
Cc: anton@samba.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, cmetcalf@tilera.com, dhowells@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, fenghua.yu@intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, mattst88@gmail.com, paulus@samba.org, lethal@linux-sh.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, rth@twiddle.net, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, tony.luck@intel.com, x86@kernel.org, sivanich@sgi.com, greg.pearson@hp.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com, bob.picco@oracle.com, chris.mason@oracle.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@kernel.org, pjt@google.com, tglx@linutronix.de, seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com, ak@linux.intel.com, arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com
In-reply-to: <1338973295.2749.81.camel@twins>
List-archive: <http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?Subject=help>
List-id: linux-mips <linux-mips.eddie.linux-mips.org>
List-owner: <mailto:ralf@linux-mips.org>
List-post: <mailto:linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=subscribe%20linux-mips>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=unsubscribe%20linux-mips>
References: <1338965571-9812-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1338973295.2749.81.camel@twins>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0
On 06/06/2012 05:01 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 14:52 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>> -       if (sched_domains_numa_distance[level] > REMOTE_DISTANCE)
>> +       if (sched_domains_numa_distance[level] > RECLAIM_DISTANCE) 
> 
> I actually considered this.. I just felt a little uneasy re-purposing
> the RECLAIM_DISTANCE for this, but I guess its all the same anyway. Both
> mean expensive-away-distance.
> 


I understand you, the BIOS guys don't have a good alignment with us on
this.

> So I've taken this.
> 
> thanks!



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>