[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130128152241.GC6109@pd.tnic>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:22:41 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, pjt@...gle.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg and
power awareness scheduling
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:40:46PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > No no, that's not restricted to one node. It's just overloaded because
> > I turned balancing off at the NODE domain level.
>
> Which shows only that I was multitasking, and in a rush. Boy was that
> dumb. Hohum.
Ok, let's take a step back and slow it down a bit so that people like me
can understand it: you want to try it with disabled load balancing on
the node level, AFAICT. But with that many tasks, perf will suck anyway,
no? Unless you want to benchmark the numa-aware aspect and see whether
load balancing on the node level feels differently, perf-wise?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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