Strange scheduling behavoir in SMP (kernel 2.2.14)

[Michael Schulz]

Stephen C. Tweedie:
> That's why if you have a background task and two interactive tasks on a
> 2-CPU machine, you really cannot avoid the background task jumping
> between CPUs unless you are willing to leave a CPU idle at times (and
> that, in general, is a very bad thing to do.)
Yea,  that's  what  the  comments   in  sched.c  say  as  well. But  I
seriously doubt that. Letting the background process jump pollutes the
caches. That hurts more than letting  the interactive process pass and
keep the background process once asleep  to wait for its home cpu. The
affinity patch seems to be winner here. Didn't try it jet ;)

	Micha.

-- 
-- Michael Schulz, NatS - Uni Hamburg

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo en vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/