On 19.02.2014 21:51, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 19 February 2014 11:40, Alexander Motin <mav_at_freebsd.org> wrote: >> Clock interrupt threads, same as other ones are only softly bound to >> specific CPUs by scheduler preferring to run them on CPUs where they are >> scheduled. So far that was enough to balance load, but allowed threads to >> migrate, if needed. Is it too flexible for some use case? > > I saw it migrate under enough CPU load / pressure, right smack bang in > the middle of doing TCP processing. > > So if we're moving towards supporting (among others) a pcbgroup / RSS > hash style work load distribution across CPUs to minimise > per-connection lock contention, we really don't want the scheduler to > decide it can schedule things on other CPUs under enough pressure. > That'll just make things worse. True, though it is also not obvious that putting second thread on CPU run queue is better then executing it right now on another core. -- Alexander MotinReceived on Wed Feb 19 2014 - 18:59:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:47 UTC