[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151123180706.GN17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2015 19:07:06 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>
Cc: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched: introduce synchronized idle injection
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 05:56:44PM +0000, Javi Merino wrote:
> I've tested this series on Juno (2xCortex-A57 4xCortex-A53). If you
> idle inject for 50% of the time, when I run 6 busy loops the scheduler
> sometimes keeps two of them in the same cpu while the another cpu is
> completely idle. Without idle injection the scheduler does the
> sensible thing: put one busy loop in each CPU. I'm running systemd
> and this only happens with CONFIG_SCHED_AUTOGROUP=y. If I unset
> CONFIG_SCHED_AUTOGROUP, the tasks are spread across all cpus as usual.
That's not a plus for this patch though; but a bug report against
AUTOGROUP/cgroup muck, right?
--
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