Re: [Resend patch v8 0/13] use runnable load in schedule balance
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Mon Oct 28 2013 - 08:22:58 EST
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:25:34AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 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://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pjt/sched-tip.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.
I talked to PJT about this last week, he said Ben was looking (or going
to look into) this sometime 'soon' iirc.
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/