On 02/15/12 21:54, Jeff Roberson wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2012, Alexander Motin wrote:
>
>> On 02/14/12 00:38, Alexander Motin wrote:
>>> I see no much point in committing them sequentially, as they are quite
>>> orthogonal. I need to make one decision. I am going on small vacation
>>> next week. It will give time for thoughts to settle. May be I indeed
>>> just clean previous patch a bit and commit it when I get back. I've
>>> spent too much time trying to make these things formal and so far
>>> results are not bad, but also not so brilliant as I would like. May be
>>> it is indeed time to step back and try some more simple solution.
>>
>> I've decided to stop those cache black magic practices and focus on
>> things that really exist in this world -- SMT and CPU load. I've
>> dropped most of cache related things from the patch and made the rest
>> of things more strict and predictable:
>> http://people.freebsd.org/~mav/sched.htt34.patch
>
> This looks great. I think there is value in considering the other
> approach further but I would like to do this part first. It would be
> nice to also add priority as a greater influence in the load balancing
> as well.

I have feeling that for timeshare/idle threads balance should take into
account not a priority, but a nice level. Priority is very unstable
thing that is recalculated each time, while nice it is what really
describes how much time thread should get in perspective and those
values should be shuffled equally between CPUs. But I haven't thought
about specific math yet.

--
Alexander Motin
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@free... mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@free..."