[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BF517FE.1000103@tuxonice.net>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 21:07:42 +1000
From: Nigel Cunningham <nigel@...onice.net>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.jf.intel.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
ego@...ibm.com, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
Nigel Cunningham <ncunningham@...a.org.au>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/7] sched: change nohz idle load balancing logic to push
model
Hi.
I finally found the time to give this patch series a try. Minor updates
were required, but I'm now running it against 2.6.34.
"Load balancing tick" is still number one in my powertop list of top
causes of wakeups (sitting at ~60 to 80 per second as I type this, with
~170 wakeups per second total). Comparing this to the numbers I posted
earlier, we seem to have a win.
I do wonder, though, whether further work could still be done. If I take
one core offline, for example, I'm still getting load balancing ticks.
Intuitively, I'd expect there to be no need for them with only one core
available. But maybe I'm just ignorant of what's going on.
Regards,
Nigel
--
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