[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140429150430.GI2639@e103034-lin>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:04:30 +0100
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"daniel.lezcano@...aro.org" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"efault@....de" <efault@....de>,
"wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mgorman@...e.de" <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH V5 0/8] remove cpu_load idx
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 05:20:29PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> OK, this series is a lot saner, with the exception of 3/8 and
> dependents.
>
> I do still worry a bit for loosing the longer term view for the big
> domains though. Sadly I don't have any really big machines.
>
> I think the entire series is equivalent to setting LB_BIAS to false. So
> I suppose we could do that for a while and if nobody reports horrible
> things we could just do this.
>
> Anybody?
I can't say what will happen on big machines, but I think the LB_BIAS
test could be a way to see what happens. I'm not convinced that it won't
lead to more task migrations since we will use the instantaneous cpu
load (weighted_cpuload()) unfiltered.
Morten
--
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