[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5189AB83.6060503@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2013 09:33:55 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] sched: consider runnable load average in effective_load
On 05/07/2013 01:43 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>> > This also brings forth another question,should we modify wake_affine()
>> > to pass the runnable load average of the waking up task to effective_load().
>> >
>> > What do you think?
> I am not Paul. :)
>
> The acceptable patch of pgbench attached. In fact, since effective_load is mixed
> with direct load and tg's runnable load. the patch looks no much sense.
> So, I am going to agree to drop it if there is no performance benefit on my benchmarks.
This has a bad results on hackbench on 4 socket NHM/SNB machine, and has
bad result oltp on NHM EX. machine. So, drop it.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists