From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757479AbYFXAPV (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:15:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753392AbYFXAPH (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:15:07 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:57973 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753161AbYFXAPG (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:15:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:15:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Steven Rostedt X-X-Sender: rostedt@gandalf.stny.rr.com To: Gregory Haskins cc: mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, dbahi@novell.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] RT: scheduler newidle enhancements In-Reply-To: <20080623225645.31515.36393.stgit@lsg.lsg.lab.novell.com> Message-ID: References: <20080623225645.31515.36393.stgit@lsg.lsg.lab.novell.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 23 Jun 2008, Gregory Haskins wrote: > > Hi Ingo, Steven, Thomas, > The following series applies to 25.4-rt6 and is "ready for inclusion" from > my perspective. However, due to their nature I am sure we will want to get > some review feedback before being considered for acceptance. > > These patches are probably suitable for consideration for > mainline/sched-devel as well, but PREEMPT_RT gains the biggest boost from > them since it tends to context switch much more frequently than mainline. > > This series makes some adjustments to the way we do newidle balancing. > These tweaks were discovered while doing some related scheduler R&D that is > not quite ready for the light of day. But these patches do offer a > substantial boost (6-12%) in network performance. They may help in other > areas as well, but networking is where our focus remains currently. > > I think the patch 1/3 is a good one, but it requires careful review. Patch > 2/3 is based upon some work I had seen PeterZ submit, so its possible to > just pull his work (if it hasnt been already) as opposed to this patch, if > desired. Lastly, Patch 3/3 is a bit controversial so I put it last for > easier cherry picking of the first two. It does help in our testing, but it > will have to be reviewed carefully. > > Comments/feedback/bugfixes more than welcome. Greg, I don't see anything wrong with these patches. If either Ingo or Peter have any issues, I hope they speak up soon. I'll queue them all for 25-rt8 (after I get rt7 out the door). -- Steve