[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1407253377.2487.11.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 08:42:57 -0700
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Aswin Chandramouleeswaran <aswin@...com>,
Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>,
Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Reduce contention in update_cfs_rq_blocked_load
On Tue, 2014-08-05 at 03:15 +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> I am not sure whether you noticed my latest work: rewriting per entity load average
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1760754
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1760755
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1760757
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1760756
>
> which simply does not track blocked load average at all. Are you interested in
> testing the patchset with the workload you have?
Hi Yuyang, yes I can also test your latest patchset with some of the
AIM7 workloads. Not needing extra overhead for the blocked load should
also address this contention in update_cfs_rq_blocked_load().
> The comparison can also help
> us understand the rewrite. Overall, per our tests, the overhead should be less,
> and perf should be better.
--
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