[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120604114130.GA3386@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 17:11:30 +0530
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Prashanth Nageshappa <prashanth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
mingo@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
roland@...nel.org, efault@....de, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: balance_cpu to consider other cpus in its group
as target of (pinned) task migration
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2012-06-04 11:00:54]:
> > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> Did vatsa write this patch?
I wrote the first version of the patch which Prashanth took, tested,
fixed a bug and is finally publishing it. So yes,
> If so, you forgot a From header, if not, wtf!?
it is missing the From header.
> OK, so previously we only pulled to ourselves,
That't not entirely true isn't it i.e this_cpu need not equal
smp_processor_id even before this change.
> now you make cpu x move
> from cpu y to cpu z. This changes the dynamic of the load-balancer, not
> a single word on that and its impact/ramifications.
The other possibility is for the right sibling cpus to do load balance
in the same domain (noting that it needs to pull a task from another
sched_group to itself and ignoring balance_cpu). That seemed like a more
invasive change than this patch. We'd be happy to try any other approach
you have in mind.
- vatsa
--
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