Re: [Resend patch v8 0/13] use runnable load in schedule balance

From: Frederic Weisbecker
Date: Mon Oct 28 2013 - 06:25:41 EST

2013/6/28 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 03:56:25AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
>> So this is actually an interesting idea, but don't think of it as
>> overweight. What "cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg / 2" means is actually
>> blocked_load_avg one period from now. This is interesting because it
>> makes the (reasonable) supposition that blocked load is not about to
>> immediately wake, but will continue to decay.
>> Could you try testing the gvr_lb_tip branch at
>> git:// ?
>> It's an extension to your series that tries to improve some of the
>> cpu_load interactions in an alternate way to the above.
>> It seems a little better on one and two-socket machines; but we
>> couldn't reproduce/compare to your best performance results since they
>> were taken on larger machines.
> Oh nice.. it does away with the entire cpu_load[] array thing. Just what
> Frederic needs for his NOHZ stuff as well -- he's currently abusing
> LB_BIAS for that.

Hi guys,

Is there any updates on the status of this work? I'm getting back on
fixing the cpu_load for full dynticks and this patchset was apparently
taking care of that.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at