[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160926115300.GA5016@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 13:53:00 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, Morten.Rasmussen@....com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, pjt@...gle.com, bsegall@...gle.com
Subject: Re: group scheduler regression since 4.3 (bisect 9d89c257d
sched/fair: Rewrite runnable load and utilization average tracking)
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 01:42:05PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 09/26/2016 12:56 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > One of the differences in the old and new thing is being addressed by
> > these patches:
> >
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1473666472-13749-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
> >
> > Could you see if those patches make a difference? If not, we'll have to
> > go poke elsewhere ofcourse ;-)
>
> Those patches do not apply cleanly on v4.7, linux/master or next/master.
> Is there a good branch to test these patches?
They seemed to apply for me on tip/sched/core, I pushed out a branch for
you that has them on.
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/peterz/queue.git sched/propagate
I didn't boot the result though; but they applied without issue.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists