On 9/13/12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:49 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 06:11 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> Well, updating the load statistics on the cpu you're going to balance
> seems like a good end to me.. ;-) No point updating the local
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 10:19 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:49 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 06:11 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On tickless system, one CPU runs load balance for all idle CPUs.
> > > The cpu_load of this CPU is updated
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 10:45 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 10:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > I think you need to present numbers showing benefit. Crawling all over
> > > a mostly idle (4096p?) box is decidedly bad thing to do.
>
> Yeah, but we're already doing that
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 10:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > I think you need to present numbers showing benefit. Crawling all over
> > a mostly idle (4096p?) box is decidedly bad thing to do.
Yeah, but we're already doing that anyway.. we know nohz idle balance
doesn't scale. Venki and Suresh
Wrong button make me removed others guys from the thread.
Sorry for this mistake.
On 13 September 2012 09:56, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 09:44 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 13 September 2012 09:29, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:59 +0200, Vincent
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 06:11 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On tickless system, one CPU runs load balance for all idle CPUs.
> The cpu_load of this CPU is updated before starting the load balance
> of each other idle CPUs. We should instead update the cpu_load of the
> balance_cpu.
>
>
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:49 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 06:11 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On tickless system, one CPU runs load balance for all idle CPUs.
> > The cpu_load of this CPU is updated before starting the load balance
> > of each other idle CPUs. We should
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 06:11 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On tickless system, one CPU runs load balance for all idle CPUs.
> The cpu_load of this CPU is updated before starting the load balance
> of each other idle CPUs. We should instead update the cpu_load of the
> balance_cpu.
>
>
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 06:11 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On tickless system, one CPU runs load balance for all idle CPUs.
The cpu_load of this CPU is updated before starting the load balance
of each other idle CPUs. We should instead update the cpu_load of the
balance_cpu.
Signed-off-by:
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:49 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 06:11 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On tickless system, one CPU runs load balance for all idle CPUs.
The cpu_load of this CPU is updated before starting the load balance
of each other idle CPUs. We should
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 06:11 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On tickless system, one CPU runs load balance for all idle CPUs.
The cpu_load of this CPU is updated before starting the load balance
of each other idle CPUs. We should instead update the cpu_load of the
balance_cpu.
Signed-off-by:
Wrong button make me removed others guys from the thread.
Sorry for this mistake.
On 13 September 2012 09:56, Mike Galbraith efa...@gmx.de wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 09:44 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 13 September 2012 09:29, Mike Galbraith efa...@gmx.de wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 10:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
I think you need to present numbers showing benefit. Crawling all over
a mostly idle (4096p?) box is decidedly bad thing to do.
Yeah, but we're already doing that anyway.. we know nohz idle balance
doesn't scale. Venki and Suresh
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 10:45 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 10:37 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
I think you need to present numbers showing benefit. Crawling all over
a mostly idle (4096p?) box is decidedly bad thing to do.
Yeah, but we're already doing that anyway..
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 10:19 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:49 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 06:11 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On tickless system, one CPU runs load balance for all idle CPUs.
The cpu_load of this CPU is updated before
On 9/13/12, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:49 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 06:11 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Well, updating the load statistics on the cpu you're going to balance
seems like a good end to me.. ;-) No point updating
On tickless system, one CPU runs load balance for all idle CPUs.
The cpu_load of this CPU is updated before starting the load balance
of each other idle CPUs. We should instead update the cpu_load of the
balance_cpu.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 11 ++-
1
On tickless system, one CPU runs load balance for all idle CPUs.
The cpu_load of this CPU is updated before starting the load balance
of each other idle CPUs. We should instead update the cpu_load of the
balance_cpu.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guit...@linaro.org
---
18 matches
Mail list logo
