[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1338810796.28282.32.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:53:16 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Prashanth Nageshappa <prashanth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
mingo@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
roland@...nel.org, Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: balance_cpu to consider other cpus in its group
as target of (pinned) task migration
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 11:25 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Isn't this poking the wrong spot?
Yes and no, the use-case is definitely so-so.. However, even if a FIFO
task were to only consume 95% of time, we might still want to balance
things differently, and I don't think we do the sane thing there either.
But fully agreed, if you run FIFO at 100% you get to keep the pieces.
--
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