[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1361208136.14352.226.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:22:16 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Clark Williams <clark@...hat.com>,
Andrew Theurer <habanero@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: The removal of idle_balance()
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 10:23 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 04:42 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 16:54 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 08:14 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > (And puts a dent in x264 ultrafast)
> >
> > > What about my last patch? The one that avoids idle_balance() if the
> > > previous task was in a task_uninterruptible state. That one gave the
> > > same performance increase that removing idle_balance() did on my box.
> >
> > I didn't try it, figuring it was pretty much the same as turning it off,
> > but just did. Patch (-typo) has no effect on either x264 or hackbench
> > (surely will for -rt, but rt tasks here aren't sent to burn in rt hell).
>
> So it had no effect to your tests? That's actually good, as if it has a
> positive effect on some workloads and no effect on others, that's still
> a net win.
Yeah, for clarity, with "!" removed, there was zero effect to either
hackbench or x264 ultrafast.
-Mike
--
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