[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <515AA13A.5090709@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 17:13:30 +0800
From: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
CC: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de,
pjt@...gle.com, namhyung@...nel.org, morten.rasmussen@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, len.brown@...el.com,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, jkosina@...e.cz,
clark.williams@...il.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
keescook@...omium.org, mgorman@...e.de, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [patch v3 0/8] sched: use runnable avg in load balance
On 04/02/2013 04:34 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
>> The reason may caused by wake_affine()'s higher overhead, and pgbench is
>> really sensitive to this stuff...
>
> For grins, you could try running the whole thing SCHED_BATCH. (/me sees
> singing/dancing red herring whenever wake_affine() and pgbench appear in
> the same sentence;)
I saw the patch touched the wake_affine(), just interested on what will
happen ;-)
The patch changed the overhead of wake_affine(), and also influence it's
result, I used to think the later one may do some help to the pgbench...
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> -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