Commit 70d88abf authored by Ingo Molnar's avatar Ingo Molnar Committed by Linus Torvalds

[PATCH] Use cache_decay_ticks instead of a constant

This patch, based on Ken Chen's patch, changes the default 2.5 msec
migration-cutoff value to be based on cache_decay_ticks, which is what
we used for a long time prior the sched-domains code.  (If an
architecture does not set cache_decay_ticks then 2.5 msec is used.)

This causes the following new migration-cutoff values on various SMP
systems:

 x86, variable:

 2-way celeron 466MHz, 128K:        2.5 msec ->  1.0 msec
 2-way/4-way 2.2 GHz P4 Xeon 1MB:   2.5 msec ->  2.0 msec
 8-way P3 700 MHz Xeon 2MB:         2.5 msec ->  6.0 msec

 x64, variable:

 amd64: 2.0 GHz, 1MB:               2.5 msec -> 1.5 msec
 em64t: 3.4 GHz, 1MB:               2.5 msec -> 3.0 msec

 ppc64 [*]:                         2.5 msec -> 2.5 msec (constant)

 ia64:                              2.5 msec -> 10.0 msec (constant)

    [*] ppc64 does not set cache_decay_ticks so we fall back to the
        default.

I believe in light of previous testing we could attempt this for 2.6.9 as
well.  (Note: that the 2.6.9-rc3 patch looks similar but needs to patch
kernel/sched.c.  Note2: this patch is different from Ken's original one.)
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: default avatarKen Chen <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
parent 52d9bf0b
...@@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ struct sched_domain { ...@@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ struct sched_domain {
.max_interval = 4, \ .max_interval = 4, \
.busy_factor = 64, \ .busy_factor = 64, \
.imbalance_pct = 125, \ .imbalance_pct = 125, \
.cache_hot_time = (5*1000000/2), \ .cache_hot_time = cache_decay_ticks*1000000 ? : (5*1000000/2),\
.cache_nice_tries = 1, \ .cache_nice_tries = 1, \
.per_cpu_gain = 100, \ .per_cpu_gain = 100, \
.flags = SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE \ .flags = SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE \
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment