On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 04:57:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here the current patches that rework load_balance_monitor.
>
> The main reason for doing this is to eliminate the wakeups the thing
> generates,
> esp. on an idle system. The bonus is that it removes a kernel thread.
>
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 04:57:24PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Hi,
Here the current patches that rework load_balance_monitor.
The main reason for doing this is to eliminate the wakeups the thing
generates,
esp. on an idle system. The bonus is that it removes a kernel thread.
Hi
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter wrote of:
>> the lack of rd->load_balance.
>
> Could you explain to me a bit what that means?
>
> Does this mean that the existing code would, by default (default being
> a
Peter wrote of:
> the lack of rd->load_balance.
Could you explain to me a bit what that means?
Does this mean that the existing code would, by default (default being
a single sched domain, covering the entire system's CPUs) load balance
across the entire system, but with your rework, not so load
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:57 AM, in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here the current patches that rework load_balance_monitor.
>
> The main reason for doing this is to eliminate the wakeups the thing
> generates,
> esp. on an idle system.
Hi,
Here the current patches that rework load_balance_monitor.
The main reason for doing this is to eliminate the wakeups the thing generates,
esp. on an idle system. The bonus is that it removes a kernel thread.
Paul, Gregory - the thing that bothers me most atm is the lack of
Hi,
Here the current patches that rework load_balance_monitor.
The main reason for doing this is to eliminate the wakeups the thing generates,
esp. on an idle system. The bonus is that it removes a kernel thread.
Paul, Gregory - the thing that bothers me most atm is the lack of
rd-load_balance.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:57 AM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Zijlstra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
Here the current patches that rework load_balance_monitor.
The main reason for doing this is to eliminate the wakeups the thing
generates,
esp. on an idle system. The bonus is
Peter wrote of:
the lack of rd-load_balance.
Could you explain to me a bit what that means?
Does this mean that the existing code would, by default (default being
a single sched domain, covering the entire system's CPUs) load balance
across the entire system, but with your rework, not so load
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter wrote of:
the lack of rd-load_balance.
Could you explain to me a bit what that means?
Does this mean that the existing code would, by default (default being
a single sched domain,
10 matches
Mail list logo
