From: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>,
SureshSiddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
"Pallipadi,Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/6][RFC] sched: unify load_balance{,_newidle}()
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:43:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1261629824.10947.13.camel@marge.simson.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1261581216.4937.150.camel@laptop>
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 16:13 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> load_balance() and load_balance_newidle() look remarkably similar, one
> key point they differ in is the condition on when to active balance.
>
> So split out that logic into a separate function.
>
> One side effect is that previously load_balance_newidle() used to fail and
> return -1 under these conditions, whereas now it doesn't. I've not yet fully
> figured out the whole -1 return case for either load_balance{,_newidle}().
>
> It also differs in that sd->cache_nice_tries is now added on the
> CPU_NEWLY_IDLE case.
Unification Looks like a good idea, less being more and all that. I
suspect that last bit is why newidle effectiveness has been heavily
impacted. x264 ultrafast testcase is whimpering pathetically again ;-)
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-24 4:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-17 18:50 [PATCH 0/6] Some load-balancer cleanups Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-17 18:50 ` [PATCH 1/6] sched: Move load balance code into sched_fair.c Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-17 18:50 ` [PATCH 2/6] sched: Remove the sched_class load_balance methods Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-17 18:50 ` [PATCH 3/6] sched: Remove rq_iterator usage from load_balance_fair Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-17 18:50 ` [PATCH 4/6] sched: Remove rq_iterator from move_one_task Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-17 18:50 ` [PATCH 5/6] sched: Remove from fwd decls Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-17 18:50 ` [PATCH 6/6] sched: Add a lock break for PREEMPT=y Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-18 6:57 ` [PATCH 0/6] Some load-balancer cleanups Ingo Molnar
2009-12-18 9:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-23 15:13 ` [PATCH 7/6][RFC] sched: unify load_balance{,_newidle}() Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-24 4:43 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2009-12-24 9:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-24 10:01 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-24 10:09 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-24 10:16 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-24 10:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-24 12:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-12-24 17:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2009-12-23 15:13 ` [PATCH 8/6][RFC] sched: Remove load_balance_newidle() Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1261629824.10947.13.camel@marge.simson.net \
--to=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome