[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110623104455.GA9274@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:44:55 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] sched: Distangle worker accounting from rq->lock
* Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> The patch description is simply untrue. It does affect how wq
> behaves under heavy CPU load. The effect might be perfectly okay
> but more likely it will result in subtle suboptimal behaviors under
> certain load situations which would be difficult to characterize
> and track down. Again, the trade off (mostly killing of
> ttwu_local) could be okay but you can't get away with just claiming
> "there's no harm".
Well, either it can be measured or not. If you can suggest a specific
testing method to Thomas, please do.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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