linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] sched: compute runnable load avg in cpu_load and cpu_avg_load_per

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <51889C8A.5000806@intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 07 May 2013 14:17:46 +0800
From:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/7] sched: compute runnable load avg in cpu_load and
 cpu_avg_load_per_task

On 05/06/2013 07:10 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > The runnable_avgs themselves actually have a fair bit of history in
>> > them already (50% is last 32ms); but given that they don't need to be
>> > cut-off to respond to load being migrated I'm guessing we could
>> > actually potentially get by with just "instaneous" and "use averages"
>> > where appropriate?
> Sure,. worth a try. If things fall over we can always look at it again.
> 
>> > We always end up having to re-pick/tune them based on a variety of
>> > workloads; if we can eliminate them I think it would be a win.
> Agreed, esp. the plethora of weird idx things we currently have. If we need to
> re-introduce something it would likely only be the busy case and for that we
> can immediately link to the balance interval or so.
> 
> 
> 

I like to have try bases on this patchset. :)

First, we can remove the idx, to check if the removing is fine for our
benchmarks, kbuild, dbench, tbench, hackbench, aim7, specjbb etc.

If there are some regression. we can think more.

-- 
Thanks
    Alex
--
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/