On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 02:33:00PM -0800, Suresh B wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:26:54AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > This is really ugly, sorry :(
>
> hm. myself and others too thought it was a simple and nice idea.
The idea is not bad. I won't guarantee mine will be as good or better,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:26:54AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> This is really ugly, sorry :(
hm. myself and others too thought it was a simple and nice idea.
> My suggestion for handling this was to increase the maximum balance
> interval for an idle CPU, and just implement a global shutdown
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:26:54AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
This is really ugly, sorry :(
hm. myself and others too thought it was a simple and nice idea.
My suggestion for handling this was to increase the maximum balance
interval for an idle CPU, and just implement a global shutdown when
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 02:33:00PM -0800, Suresh B wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:26:54AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
This is really ugly, sorry :(
hm. myself and others too thought it was a simple and nice idea.
The idea is not bad. I won't guarantee mine will be as good or better,
but I
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 06:08:42PM -0800, Suresh B wrote:
> Changes since v1:
>
> - Move the idle load balancer selection from schedule()
> to the first busy scheduler_tick() after restarting the tick.
> This will avoid the unnecessay ownership changes when
> softirq's(which are
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 12:23:44PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:08:42 -0800
> > +int select_nohz_load_balancer(int stop_tick)
> > +{
> > + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > +
> > + if (stop_tick) {
> > + cpu_set(cpu, nohz.cpu_mask);
> > +
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:08:42 -0800
"Siddha, Suresh B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Changes since v1:
>
> - Move the idle load balancer selection from schedule()
> to the first busy scheduler_tick() after restarting the tick.
> This will avoid the unnecessay ownership changes when
>
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:08:42 -0800
Siddha, Suresh B [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Changes since v1:
- Move the idle load balancer selection from schedule()
to the first busy scheduler_tick() after restarting the tick.
This will avoid the unnecessay ownership changes when
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 12:23:44PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:08:42 -0800
+int select_nohz_load_balancer(int stop_tick)
+{
+ int cpu = smp_processor_id();
+
+ if (stop_tick) {
+ cpu_set(cpu, nohz.cpu_mask);
+
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 06:08:42PM -0800, Suresh B wrote:
Changes since v1:
- Move the idle load balancer selection from schedule()
to the first busy scheduler_tick() after restarting the tick.
This will avoid the unnecessay ownership changes when
softirq's(which are run in
Changes since v1:
- Move the idle load balancer selection from schedule()
to the first busy scheduler_tick() after restarting the tick.
This will avoid the unnecessay ownership changes when
softirq's(which are run in softirqd context in certain -rt
configurations) like timer,
Changes since v1:
- Move the idle load balancer selection from schedule()
to the first busy scheduler_tick() after restarting the tick.
This will avoid the unnecessay ownership changes when
softirq's(which are run in softirqd context in certain -rt
configurations) like timer,
12 matches
Mail list logo
