Hello, Peter.
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 12:29:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 12:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 18:50 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems that there is some misunderstanding about this patch.
> > > In this patch, we
Hello, Peter.
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 12:29:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 12:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 18:50 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
It seems that there is some misunderstanding about this patch.
In this patch, we don't iterate
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 12:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 18:50 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >
> > It seems that there is some misunderstanding about this patch.
> > In this patch, we don't iterate all groups. Instead, we iterate on
> > cpus of local sched_group only. So
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 18:50 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>
> It seems that there is some misunderstanding about this patch.
> In this patch, we don't iterate all groups. Instead, we iterate on
> cpus of local sched_group only. So there is no penalty you mentioned.
OK, I'll go stare at it again..
Hello, Peter.
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:10:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 16:58 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Now checking that this cpu is appropriate to balance is embedded into
> > update_sg_lb_stats() and this checking has no direct relationship to
> > this
> >
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 16:58 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Now checking that this cpu is appropriate to balance is embedded into
> update_sg_lb_stats() and this checking has no direct relationship to
> this
> function.
>
> There is not enough reason to place this checking at
> update_sg_lb_stats(),
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 16:58 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
Now checking that this cpu is appropriate to balance is embedded into
update_sg_lb_stats() and this checking has no direct relationship to
this
function.
There is not enough reason to place this checking at
update_sg_lb_stats(),
except
Hello, Peter.
On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 10:10:06AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 16:58 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
Now checking that this cpu is appropriate to balance is embedded into
update_sg_lb_stats() and this checking has no direct relationship to
this
function.
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 18:50 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
It seems that there is some misunderstanding about this patch.
In this patch, we don't iterate all groups. Instead, we iterate on
cpus of local sched_group only. So there is no penalty you mentioned.
OK, I'll go stare at it again..
--
To
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 12:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 18:50 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
It seems that there is some misunderstanding about this patch.
In this patch, we don't iterate all groups. Instead, we iterate on
cpus of local sched_group only. So there is no
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:58:26PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 16:58 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > +static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> > +{
> > + struct sched_group *sg = env->sd->groups;
> > + int cpu, balance_cpu = -1;
> > +
> > + /*
> >
Hello, Peter.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:45:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 16:58 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > There is not enough reason to place this checking at
> > update_sg_lb_stats(),
> > except saving one iteration for sched_group_cpus. But with this
> > change,
Hello, Peter.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:45:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 16:58 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
There is not enough reason to place this checking at
update_sg_lb_stats(),
except saving one iteration for sched_group_cpus. But with this
change,
we can
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 12:58:26PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 16:58 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
+static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env)
+{
+ struct sched_group *sg = env-sd-groups;
+ int cpu, balance_cpu = -1;
+
+ /*
+* In
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 16:58 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> +static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> +{
> + struct sched_group *sg = env->sd->groups;
> + int cpu, balance_cpu = -1;
> +
> + /*
> +* In the newly idle case, we will allow all the cpu's
> +* to
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 16:58 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> There is not enough reason to place this checking at
> update_sg_lb_stats(),
> except saving one iteration for sched_group_cpus. But with this
> change,
> we can save two memset cost and can expect better compiler
> optimization,
> so
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 16:58 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
There is not enough reason to place this checking at
update_sg_lb_stats(),
except saving one iteration for sched_group_cpus. But with this
change,
we can save two memset cost and can expect better compiler
optimization,
so clean-up may
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 16:58 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
+static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env)
+{
+ struct sched_group *sg = env-sd-groups;
+ int cpu, balance_cpu = -1;
+
+ /*
+* In the newly idle case, we will allow all the cpu's
+* to do the
Now checking that this cpu is appropriate to balance is embedded into
update_sg_lb_stats() and this checking has no direct relationship to this
function.
There is not enough reason to place this checking at update_sg_lb_stats(),
except saving one iteration for sched_group_cpus. But with this
Now checking that this cpu is appropriate to balance is embedded into
update_sg_lb_stats() and this checking has no direct relationship to this
function.
There is not enough reason to place this checking at update_sg_lb_stats(),
except saving one iteration for sched_group_cpus. But with this
20 matches
Mail list logo
