[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130617140100.GZ3204@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:01:00 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.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>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Changlong Xie <changlongx.xie@...el.com>, sgruszka@...hat.com,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v8 9/9] sched/tg: remove blocked_load_avg in balance
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 05:20:46AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com> wrote:
> > blocked_load_avg sometime is too heavy and far bigger than runnable load
> > avg, that make balance make wrong decision. So remove it.
>
> Ok so this is going to have terrible effects on the correctness of
> shares distribution; I'm fairly opposed to it in its present form.
Should someone take a look at the LTP cgroup tests to make sure they
cover this properly?
--
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