[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140625053138.GF6758@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:31:38 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, chegu_vinod@...com, mgorman@...e.de,
mingo@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/7] sched,numa: remove task_h_load from task_numa_compare
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 01:25:00AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/25/2014 01:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:07:35AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> Shall I merge this into patch 3?
> >
> > Which gets me the below; which is has a wrong changelog.
> >
> > task_h_load() already computes the load as seen from the root
> > group. effective_load() just does a better (and more expensive) job
> > of computing the task movement implications of a move.
> >
> > So the total effect of this patch shouldn't be very big; regular
> > load balancing also only uses task_h_load(), see move_tasks().
> >
> > Now, we don't run with preemption disabled, don't run as often,
> > etc.., so maybe we can indeed use the more expensive variant just
> > fine, but does it really matter?
>
> In my testing, it appears to make a difference between workloads
> converging, and workloads sitting with one last thread stuck on
> another node that never gets moved...
Fair enough; can you provide a new Changelog that I can paste in?
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists