On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 12:35:34PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > Currently we detect overload by sg.nr_running >= sg.capacity, which can > > be very misleading because while a cpu might have a task running 'now' > > it might be 99% idle. > > > > At which point I argued we should change the capacity thing anyhow. Ever > > since the runnable_avg patch set I've been arguing to change that into > > an actual utilization test. > > > > So I think that if we measure overload by something like >95% utilization > > on the entire group the load scaling again makes perfect sense. > > I agree that it make more sense to change the overload test to be based > on some tracked load. How about the non-overloaded case? Load balancing > would have to be based on unweighted task loads in that case?
Yeah, until we're overloaded our goal is to minimize idle time. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
