[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <518CFE20.8080309@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 22:03:12 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
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 6/7] sched: consider runnable load average in move_tasks
On 05/09/2013 01:29 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>
> I reviewed the cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg code path, no clear abnormal found.
> Seems the blocked load avg is fit current balance rules.
Sorry, I mean, the blocked load avg doesn't fit current balance rules.
The reason is blow, any comments on this?
> Sometime the blocked load far bigger than runnable load. The blocked_load_avg
> has a long time effect(more than half weight in 32ms), that drives wakeup task to other
> cpus not locate, and give unnecessary load in periodic balance, isn't 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