2016-10-10 18:01 GMT+08:00 Matt Fleming <[email protected]>: > On Sun, 09 Oct, at 11:39:27AM, Wanpeng Li wrote: >> >> The difference between this patch and Peterz's is your patch have a >> delta since activate_task()->enqueue_task() does do update_rq_clock(), >> so why don't have the delta will cause low cpu machines (4 or 8) to >> regress against your another reply in this thread? > > Both my patch and Peter's patch cause issues with low cpu machines. In > <[email protected]> I said, > > "This patch causes some low cpu machines (4 or 8) to regress. It turns > out they regress with my patch too." > > Have I misunderstood your question?
I compare this one https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=147446511924571 with Peterz's patch. > > I ran out of time to investigate this last week, though I did try all > proposed patches, including Vincent's, and none of them produced wins > across the board. > > I should get a bit further this week. > > Vincent, Dietmar, did you guys ever get around to submitting your PELT > tracepoint patches? Getting some introspection into the scheduler's > load balancing decisions would speed up this sort of research.
