Re: [RFC II] Splitting scheduler into two halves

2014-03-28 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 07:00 +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 07:50:31AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 06:13 +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > > > > > Spitting does feel brutal... > > > > FWIW, "split" stuck hard in my gullet because task placement is core > > O

Re: [RFC II] Splitting scheduler into two halves

2014-03-28 Thread Yuyang Du
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 07:50:31AM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 06:13 +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > > > Spitting does feel brutal... > > FWIW, "split" stuck hard in my gullet because task placement is core Oh, sorry for that, :) > fastpath mission. If the fastpath could aff

Re: [RFC II] Splitting scheduler into two halves

2014-03-27 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 06:13 +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > Spitting does feel brutal... FWIW, "split" stuck hard in my gullet because task placement is core fastpath mission. If the fastpath could afford to and did task placement perfectly, task placement EDC (if you will) mechanisms would not exist.

Re: [RFC II] Splitting scheduler into two halves

2014-03-27 Thread Yuyang Du
Hi, I should have changed the subject to "Refining the load balancing interfaces". Spitting does feel brutal or too big a jump for now. But i doubt that would change your mind anyway. Overall, I interpret your comment as: calling for substantial stuff. Yay, working on it. Thanks, Yuyang On Thu,

Re: [RFC II] Splitting scheduler into two halves

2014-03-27 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 02:37 +0800, Yuyang du wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > This is continued after the first RFC about splitting the scheduler. Still > > work-in-progress, and call for feedback. > > > > The question addressed here is how load balance should be changed.

Re: [RFC II] Splitting scheduler into two halves

2014-03-26 Thread Mike Galbraith
On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 02:37 +0800, Yuyang du wrote: > Hi all, > > This is continued after the first RFC about splitting the scheduler. Still > work-in-progress, and call for feedback. > > The question addressed here is how load balance should be changed. And I think > the question then goes to h

[RFC II] Splitting scheduler into two halves

2014-03-26 Thread Yuyang du
Hi all, This is continued after the first RFC about splitting the scheduler. Still work-in-progress, and call for feedback. The question addressed here is how load balance should be changed. And I think the question then goes to how to *reuse* common code as much as possible and meanwhile be able