[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1261629824.10947.13.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:43:44 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>,
SureshSiddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"Pallipadi,Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/6][RFC] sched: unify load_balance{,_newidle}()
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 16:13 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> load_balance() and load_balance_newidle() look remarkably similar, one
> key point they differ in is the condition on when to active balance.
>
> So split out that logic into a separate function.
>
> One side effect is that previously load_balance_newidle() used to fail and
> return -1 under these conditions, whereas now it doesn't. I've not yet fully
> figured out the whole -1 return case for either load_balance{,_newidle}().
>
> It also differs in that sd->cache_nice_tries is now added on the
> CPU_NEWLY_IDLE case.
Unification Looks like a good idea, less being more and all that. I
suspect that last bit is why newidle effectiveness has been heavily
impacted. x264 ultrafast testcase is whimpering pathetically again ;-)
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists