[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51C7B9B8.6090309@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 11:15:04 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org
CC: tglx@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de, pjt@...gle.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, efault@....de, morten.rasmussen@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, len.brown@...el.com,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, jkosina@...e.cz,
clark.williams@...il.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
keescook@...omium.org, mgorman@...e.de, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [Resend patch v8 0/13] use runnable load in schedule balance
On 06/20/2013 10:18 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
> Resend patchset for more convenient pick up.
> This patch set combine 'use runnable load in balance' serials and 'change
> 64bit variables to long type' serials. also collected Reviewed-bys, and
> Tested-bys.
>
> The only changed code is fixing load to load_avg convert in UP mode, which
> found by PeterZ in task_h_load().
>
> Paul still has some concern of blocked_load_avg out of balance consideration.
> but I didn't see the blocked_load_avg usage was thought through now, or some
> strong reason to make it into balance.
> So, according to benchmarks testing result I keep patches unchanged.
Ingo & Peter,
This patchset was discussed spread and deeply.
Now just 6th/8th patch has some arguments on them, Paul think it is
better to consider blocked_load_avg in balance, since it is helpful on
some scenarios, but I think on most of scenarios, the blocked_load_avg
just cause load imbalance among cpus. and plus testing show with
blocked_load_avg the performance is just worse on some benchmarks. So, I
still prefer to keep it out of balance.
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg455196.html
Is it the time to do the decision or give more comments? Thanks!
>
> Regards
> Alex
>
> [Resend patch v8 01/13] Revert "sched: Introduce temporary
> [Resend patch v8 02/13] sched: move few runnable tg variables into
> [Resend patch v8 03/13] sched: set initial value of runnable avg for
> [Resend patch v8 04/13] sched: fix slept time double counting in
> [Resend patch v8 05/13] sched: update cpu load after task_tick.
> [Resend patch v8 06/13] sched: compute runnable load avg in cpu_load
> [Resend patch v8 07/13] sched: consider runnable load average in
> [Resend patch v8 08/13] sched/tg: remove blocked_load_avg in balance
> [Resend patch v8 09/13] sched: change cfs_rq load avg to unsigned
> [Resend patch v8 10/13] sched/tg: use 'unsigned long' for load
> [Resend patch v8 11/13] sched/cfs_rq: change atomic64_t removed_load
> [Resend patch v8 12/13] sched/tg: remove tg.load_weight
> [Resend patch v8 13/13] sched: get_rq_runnable_load() can be static
>
--
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