[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1334664553.28150.87.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:09:13 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: load balancing regression since commit 367456c7
On Tue, 2012-04-10 at 18:06 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> |--56.52%-- load_balance
> | idle_balance
> | __schedule
> | schedule
Ahh, I know why I didn't see it, I have a CONFIG_PREEMPT kernel and
idle_balancing stops once its gotten a single task over instead of
achieving proper balance.
And since hackbench generates insanely long runqueues and the patch that
caused your regression 'fixed' the lock-breaking it will now iterate the
entire runqueue if needed to achieve balance, which hurts.
I think the patch I send ought to work, let me try disabling
CONFIG_PREEMPT.
--
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