[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140603122702.GM30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 14:27:02 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com, len.brown@...el.com,
alan.cox@...el.com, mark.gross@...el.com, pjt@...gle.com,
bsegall@...gle.com, morten.rasmussen@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, rajeev.d.muralidhar@...el.com,
vishwesh.m.rudramuni@...el.com, nicole.chalhoub@...el.com,
ajaya.durg@...el.com, harinarayanan.seshadri@...el.com,
jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 13/16 v3] Intercept wakeup/fork/exec load balancing
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 02:36:09PM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> We intercept load balancing to contain the load and load balancing in
> the consolidated CPUs according to our consolidating mechanism.
>
> In wakeup/fork/exec load balaning, when to find the idlest sched_group,
> we first try to find the consolidated group
Anything with intercept in is a complete non-starter. You still fully
duplicate the logic.
You really didn't get anything I said, did you?
Please as to go back to square 1 and read again.
So take a step back and try and explain what and why you're doing
things, also try and look at what other people are doing. If I see
another patch from you within two weeks I'll simply delete it, there's
no way you can read up and fix everything in such a short time.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists