Re: [RFC] sched: The removal of idle_balance()
From: Mike Galbraith
Date: Mon Feb 18 2013 - 12:22:30 EST
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 10:23 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 04:42 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 16:54 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 08:14 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > > (And puts a dent in x264 ultrafast)
> > > What about my last patch? The one that avoids idle_balance() if the
> > > previous task was in a task_uninterruptible state. That one gave the
> > > same performance increase that removing idle_balance() did on my box.
> > I didn't try it, figuring it was pretty much the same as turning it off,
> > but just did. Patch (-typo) has no effect on either x264 or hackbench
> > (surely will for -rt, but rt tasks here aren't sent to burn in rt hell).
> So it had no effect to your tests? That's actually good, as if it has a
> positive effect on some workloads and no effect on others, that's still
> a net win.
Yeah, for clarity, with "!" removed, there was zero effect to either
hackbench or x264 ultrafast.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/