From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751820Ab2KQNEg (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2012 08:04:36 -0500 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:12915 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751686Ab2KQNEf (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2012 08:04:35 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.83,270,1352102400"; d="scan'208";a="219067065" From: Alex Shi To: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, pjt@google.com, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/5] enable runnable load avg in load balance Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:04:12 +0800 Message-Id: <1353157457-3649-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.5.4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This patchset try to consider runnable load avg when do cpu load comparison in load balance. I had seen preeti's enabling before patch finished, but I still think considing runnable load avg on rq is may a more natrual way. BTW, I am thinking if 2 times decay for cpu_load is too complicate? one for runnable time, another for CPU_LOAD_IDX. I think I missed the decay reason for CPU_LOAD_IDX. Could anyone like do me favor to give some hints of this? Best Regards! Alex [RFC PATCH 1/5] sched: get rq runnable load average for load balance [RFC PATCH 2/5] sched: update rq runnable load average in time [RFC PATCH 3/5] sched: using runnable load avg in cpu_load and [RFC PATCH 4/5] sched: consider runnable load average in wake_affine [RFC PATCH 5/5] sched: revert 'Introduce temporary FAIR_GROUP_SCHED