[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120319142046.GP24602@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:20:46 +0100
From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Dan Smith <danms@...ibm.com>,
Bharata B Rao <bharata.rao@...il.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 00/26] sched/numa
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 02:39:31PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-03-19 at 14:04 +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > In implementation terms the scheduler is simplified and it won't work
> > as well as it should with massive CPU overcommit. But I had to take
> > shortcuts to keep the complexity down to O(N) where N is the number of
> > CPUS
>
> Yeah I saw that, you essentially put a nr_cpus loop inside schedule(),
> obviously that's not going to ever happen.
lol Would be fun if such a simplification would still perform better
than your code :).
Yeah I'll try to fix that but it's massively complex and frankly
benchmarking wise it won't help much fixing that... so it's beyond the
end of my todo list.
--
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