[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130716103536.GI23818@dyad.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:35:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/18] sched: Avoid overloading CPUs on a preferred NUMA
node
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:23:42AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:03:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 04:20:18PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > ---
> > > + src_eff_load = 100 + (imbalance_pct - 100) / 2;
> > > + src_eff_load *= power_of(src_cpu);
> > > + src_eff_load *= src_load + effective_load(tg, src_cpu, -weight, -weight);
> >
> > So did you try with this effective_load() term 'missing'?
> >
>
> Yes, it performed worse in tests. Looking at it, I figured that it would
> have to perform worse unless effective_load regularly returns negative
> values.
In this case it would return negative, seeing as we put a negative in.
--
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