[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51924BB8.3040907@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 22:35:36 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
CC: 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>,
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 0/8]: use runnable load avg in balance
On 05/14/2013 05:34 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
>> >
>> > We also tried to include blocked load avg in balance. but find many benchmark
>> > performance dropping. Guess the too bigger cpu load drive task to be waken
>> > on remote CPU, and cause wrong decision in periodic balance.
> Fundamentally, I think we should be exploring this space.
I thought something of this. but can not figure out a direction or stand
by some theories.
>
> While it's perhaps not surprising that it's not a drop-in, since the
> current code was tuned always considering the instaneous balance, it
> seems the likely path to increased balance stability.
>
> Although, if the code is yielding substantive benefits in its current
> form we should consider merging it in the interim.
Sorry, I can not follow you here.
>
--
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