[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51AD735A.2080108@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:55:54 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
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>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] removing variety rq->cpu_load ?
>>> >> Forgive me but I'm a little lost on this thread...
>>> >>
>>> >> So we are planing to rely on instant 'cpu_load[0]' and decayed
>>> >> 'runnable_load_avg' only, do we?
>> >
>> > cpu_load is a kind of time decay for cpu load, but after runnable load introduced,
>> > the decay functionality is a kind duplicate with it.
>> > So, remove them will make code simple. The idea were mentioned by Paul, Peter and I.
> Nice, what about make a patch 9 and clean up all those stuff?
>
> I suppose we will get more benefit :)
I'd like to.
But since Peter doesn't response this thread for long time, I even don't
know what's he opinions of patch 1~8. :(
--
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