Re: cross-cpu balancing with the new scheduler

[Davide Libenzi]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Rusty Russell wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002 18:01:40 +0100
> Manfred Spraul <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Is it possible that the inter-cpu balancing is broken in 2.5.2-pre11?
> >
> > eatcpu is a simple cpu hog ("for(;;);"). Dual CPU i386.
> >
> > $nice -19 ./eatcpu&;
> >  <wait>
> > $nice -19 ./eatcpu&;
> >  <wait>
> > $./eatcpu&.
> >
> > IMHO it should be
> > * both niced process run on one cpu.
> > * the non-niced process runs with a 100% timeslice.
> >
> > But it's the other way around:
> > One niced process runs with 100%. The non-niced process with 50%, and
> > the second niced process with 50%.
>
> This could be fixed by making "nr_running" closer to a "priority sum".

I've a very simple phrase when QA is bugging me with these corner cases :

"As Designed"

It's much much better than adding code and "Return To QA" :-)
I tried priority balancing in BMQS but i still prefer "As Designed" ...

- Davide