From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262297AbTKIPxn (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:53:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262558AbTKIPxn (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:53:43 -0500 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([69.30.125.51]:17028 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262297AbTKIPxm (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:53:42 -0500 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 07:53:42 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@bigblue.dev.mdolabs.com To: "Martin J. Bligh" cc: Nick Piggin , Andrew Morton , Con Kolivas , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix find busiest queue 2.6.0-test9 In-Reply-To: <121800000.1068392090@[10.10.2.4]> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Martin J. Bligh wrote: > I ran it on the 16-way - no difference in performance. If the code is > correct as was before (and I agree, it seems it was), perhaps it's just > in need of a big fat comment to explain the confusion? ;-) Ingo already dropped a fat comment ;) This is the relevant part: * We fend off statistical fluctuations in runqueue lengths by * saving the runqueue length during the previous load-balancing * operation and using the smaller one the current and saved lengths. - Davide