Re: cpu scheduler merge plans

[Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> So it's that time again.  We need to decide which of the queued sched
> patches should be merged into 2.6.17.
> 
> I have:
> 
> sched-fix-task-interactivity-calculation.patch
> small-schedule-microoptimization.patch
> #
> sched-implement-smpnice.patch
> sched-smpnice-apply-review-suggestions.patch
> sched-smpnice-fix-average-load-per-run-queue-calculations.patch
> sched-store-weighted-load-on-up.patch
> sched-add-discrete-weighted-cpu-load-function.patch
> sched-add-above-background-load-function.patch
> # Suresh had problems
> # con:
> sched-cleanup_task_activated.patch
> sched-make_task_noninteractive_use_sleep_type.patch
> sched-dont_decrease_idle_sleep_avg.patch
> sched-include_noninteractive_sleep_in_idle_detect.patch
> sched-remove-on-runqueue-requeueing.patch
> sched-activate-sched-batch-expired.patch
> sched-reduce-overhead-of-calc_load.patch
> #
> sched-fix-interactive-task-starvation.patch
> #
> # "strange load balancing problems": pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
> sched-new-sched-domain-for-representing-multi-core.patch
> sched-fix-group-power-for-allnodes_domains.patch
> x86-dont-use-cpuid2-to-determine-cache-info-if-cpuid4-is-supported.patch
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what the "Suresh had problems" comment refers to - perhaps a
> now-removed patch.
> 
> afaik, the load balancing problem which Peter observed remains unresolved.

I have not seen this problem on recent -mm kernels (-rc6-mm1 and
-rc6-mm2 even with SCHED_MC configured in) so it would appear that it's
fixed.  The only worrying thing is that we don't know what fixed it.

> 
> Has smpnice had appropriate testing for regressions?

There've been no reported problems for quite a while so my (biased)
answer would be "yes".

Peter
-- 
Peter Williams                                   pwil3058@bigpond.net.au

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
  -- Ambrose Bierce