On 02/03/2013 01:50 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 03:12 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
>> I'm not sure, but just concern about this case:
>>
>> group 0 cpu 0 cpu 1
>> least idle 4 task
>>
>> group 1 cpu 2
On 02/03/2013 01:50 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 01/31/2013 03:12 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
I'm not sure, but just concern about this case:
group 0 cpu 0 cpu 1
least idle 4 task
group 1 cpu 2
On 01/31/2013 03:12 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
> I'm not sure, but just concern about this case:
>
> group 0 cpu 0 cpu 1
> least idle 4 task
>
> group 1 cpu 2 cpu 3
> 1 task
On 01/31/2013 03:12 AM, Michael Wang wrote:
I'm not sure, but just concern about this case:
group 0 cpu 0 cpu 1
least idle 4 task
group 1 cpu 2 cpu 3
1 task
Hi Michael,
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:57:49 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 04:45 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/31/2013 04:24 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
>>> On 01/31/2013 03:40 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:30:02 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 02:58
Hi Michael,
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:57:49 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 04:45 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 04:24 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 03:40 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:30:02 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 02:58 PM, Namhyung Kim
On 01/31/2013 04:45 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 04:24 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/31/2013 03:40 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:30:02 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 02:58 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> But AFAIK the number of states in cpuidle is
On 01/31/2013 04:24 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 03:40 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:30:02 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>> On 01/31/2013 02:58 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
But AFAIK the number of states in cpuidle is usually less than 10 so maybe
we can change
On 01/31/2013 03:40 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:30:02 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/31/2013 02:58 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> But AFAIK the number of states in cpuidle is usually less than 10 so maybe
>>> we can change the weight then, but there's no promise...
>>
>> And
On 01/31/2013 03:40 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:30:02 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 02:58 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
But AFAIK the number of states in cpuidle is usually less than 10 so maybe
we can change the weight then, but there's no promise...
And I just got
On 01/31/2013 04:24 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 03:40 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:30:02 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 02:58 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
But AFAIK the number of states in cpuidle is usually less than 10 so maybe
we can change the weight then,
On 01/31/2013 04:45 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 04:24 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 03:40 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:30:02 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 02:58 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
But AFAIK the number of states in cpuidle is usually less
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:30:02 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 02:58 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> But AFAIK the number of states in cpuidle is usually less than 10 so maybe
>> we can change the weight then, but there's no promise...
>
> And I just got another case we should take care:
>
>
On 01/31/2013 02:58 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:39:20 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/31/2013 01:16 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>> Anyway, I have an idea with this in mind. It's like adding a new "idle
>>> load" to each idle cpu rather than special casing the idle cpus like
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:39:20 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 01:16 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Anyway, I have an idea with this in mind. It's like adding a new "idle
>> load" to each idle cpu rather than special casing the idle cpus like
>> above. IOW an idle cpu will get very small
On 01/31/2013 01:16 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Sebastian and Michael,
>
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:12:35 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 01/31/2013 05:19 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>> If a new CPU has to be choosen for a task, then the scheduler first selects
>>> the group with the
Hi Sebastian and Michael,
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:12:35 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 01/31/2013 05:19 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> If a new CPU has to be choosen for a task, then the scheduler first selects
>> the group with the least load. This group is returned if its load is lower
On 01/31/2013 05:19 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> If a new CPU has to be choosen for a task, then the scheduler first selects
> the group with the least load. This group is returned if its load is lower
> compared to the group to which the task is currently assigned.
> If there are
On 01/31/2013 05:19 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
If a new CPU has to be choosen for a task, then the scheduler first selects
the group with the least load. This group is returned if its load is lower
compared to the group to which the task is currently assigned.
If there are several
Hi Sebastian and Michael,
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:12:35 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 05:19 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
If a new CPU has to be choosen for a task, then the scheduler first selects
the group with the least load. This group is returned if its load is lower
On 01/31/2013 01:16 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Hi Sebastian and Michael,
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:12:35 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 05:19 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
If a new CPU has to be choosen for a task, then the scheduler first selects
the group with the least load.
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:39:20 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 01:16 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Anyway, I have an idea with this in mind. It's like adding a new idle
load to each idle cpu rather than special casing the idle cpus like
above. IOW an idle cpu will get very small load weight
On 01/31/2013 02:58 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:39:20 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 01:16 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Anyway, I have an idea with this in mind. It's like adding a new idle
load to each idle cpu rather than special casing the idle cpus like
above.
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:30:02 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 01/31/2013 02:58 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
But AFAIK the number of states in cpuidle is usually less than 10 so maybe
we can change the weight then, but there's no promise...
And I just got another case we should take care:
24 matches
Mail list logo