[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1310590968.2586.38.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 23:02:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc: Nikhil Rao <ncrao@...gle.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: [RFT][PATCH] sched, cgroup: Optimize load_balance_fair()
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 10:13 -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
> Nice! The continued usage of task_groups had been irking me for a
> while but I haven't had the time to scratch the itch :).
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 4:36 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > Subject: sched, cgroup: Optimize load_balance_fair()
> > From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> > Date: Wed Jul 13 13:09:25 CEST 2011
> >
> > Use for_each_leaf_cfs_rq() instead of list_for_each_entry_rcu(), this
> > achieves that load_balance_fair() only iterates those task_groups that
> > actually have tasks on busiest, and that we iterate bottom-up, trying to
> > move light groups before the heavier ones.
> >
> > No idea if it will actually work out to be beneficial in practice, does
> > anybody have a cgroup workload that might show a difference one way or
> > the other?
> >
> > [ Also move update_h_load to sched_fair.c, loosing #ifdef-ery ]
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Reviewed-by: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
So you think I should just merge it and see if any cgroup workload
dislikes it?
OK, I guess I can do that..
--
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