On 01/23/2013 09:47 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 08:36 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 01/22/2013 05:52 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:50 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>>>
Thanks for your suggestions and example, Mike!
I just can't understand the your
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 08:36 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 01/22/2013 05:52 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:50 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks for your suggestions and example, Mike!
> >> I just can't understand the your last words here, Sorry. what the
> >> detailed
On 01/22/2013 05:52 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:50 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your suggestions and example, Mike!
>> I just can't understand the your last words here, Sorry. what the
>> detailed concern of you on 'both performance profiles with either
>>
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:50 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> Thanks for your suggestions and example, Mike!
> I just can't understand the your last words here, Sorry. what the
> detailed concern of you on 'both performance profiles with either
> metric'? Could you like to give your preferred solutions?
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:50 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
Thanks for your suggestions and example, Mike!
I just can't understand the your last words here, Sorry. what the
detailed concern of you on 'both performance profiles with either
metric'? Could you like to give your preferred solutions?
Hm..
On 01/22/2013 05:52 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:50 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
Thanks for your suggestions and example, Mike!
I just can't understand the your last words here, Sorry. what the
detailed concern of you on 'both performance profiles with either
metric'? Could
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 08:36 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
On 01/22/2013 05:52 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:50 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
Thanks for your suggestions and example, Mike!
I just can't understand the your last words here, Sorry. what the
detailed concern of you
On 01/23/2013 09:47 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 08:36 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
On 01/22/2013 05:52 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 15:50 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
Thanks for your suggestions and example, Mike!
I just can't understand the your last words here,
On 01/22/2013 02:55 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 11:20 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>>
>> I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
>> after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst waking up
>> and run until all
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 11:20 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>
> I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
> after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst waking up
> and run until all finished.
> Since each of tasks are finished very
I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst waking up
and run until all finished.
Since each of tasks are finished very quickly, a imbalanced empty cpu
may goes to sleep till a
On 01/11/2013 02:31 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 01/07/2013 02:31 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>>>
>>> I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
>>> after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst waking up
On 01/11/2013 02:31 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
On 01/07/2013 02:31 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst
I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst waking up
and run until all finished.
Since each of tasks are finished very quickly, a imbalanced empty cpu
may goes to sleep till a regular balancing give
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 11:20 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst waking up
and run until all finished.
Since each of tasks are finished very quickly, a imbalanced
On 01/22/2013 02:55 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 11:20 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst waking up
and run until all finished.
Since each of tasks
On 01/07/2013 02:31 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>>
>> I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
>> after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst waking up
>> and run until all finished.
>> Since each
On 01/07/2013 02:31 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst waking up
and run until all finished.
On 01/07/2013 02:31 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>>
>> I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
>> after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst waking up
>> and run until all finished.
>> Since each
On 01/07/2013 02:31 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst waking up
and run until all finished.
Hi everyone,
On 01/07/2013 12:01 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>>
>> I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
>> after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst waking up
>> and run until all finished.
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>
> I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
> after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst waking up
> and run until all finished.
> Since each of tasks are finished very quickly, a imbalanced
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst waking up
and run until all finished.
Since each of tasks are finished very quickly, a
Hi everyone,
On 01/07/2013 12:01 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:54 PM, Alex Shi alex@intel.com wrote:
I just looked into the aim9 benchmark, in this case it forks 2000 tasks,
after all tasks ready, aim9 give a signal than all tasks burst waking up
and run until all
>> static unsigned long weighted_cpuload(const int cpu)
>> {
>> -return cpu_rq(cpu)->load.weight;
>> +return (unsigned long)cpu_rq(cpu)->cfs.runnable_load_avg;
>
> Above line change cause aim9 multitask benchmark drop about 10%
> performance on many x86 machines. Profile just show
On 01/05/2013 04:37 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> They are the base values in load balance, update them with rq runnable
> load average, then the load balance will consider runnable load avg
> naturally.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
> ---
> kernel/sched/core.c | 8
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 4
They are the base values in load balance, update them with rq runnable
load average, then the load balance will consider runnable load avg
naturally.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 8
kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
They are the base values in load balance, update them with rq runnable
load average, then the load balance will consider runnable load avg
naturally.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi alex@intel.com
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 8
kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+),
On 01/05/2013 04:37 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
They are the base values in load balance, update them with rq runnable
load average, then the load balance will consider runnable load avg
naturally.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi alex@intel.com
---
kernel/sched/core.c | 8
static unsigned long weighted_cpuload(const int cpu)
{
-return cpu_rq(cpu)-load.weight;
+return (unsigned long)cpu_rq(cpu)-cfs.runnable_load_avg;
Above line change cause aim9 multitask benchmark drop about 10%
performance on many x86 machines. Profile just show there are more
30 matches
Mail list logo
