On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 10:33:16AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 15:58 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Hrmm, my brain seems muddled but I might have another solution, let me
ponder this for a bit..
Right, so the thing I was thinking about is taking the group
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 04:22 +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote:
If the group were a core group, the total would be much higher and we'd
likely end up assigning 1 to each before we'd run out of capacity.
This is a tricky case because we are depending upon the
DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST to decide
* Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org [2010-05-31 10:33:16]:
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 15:58 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Hrmm, my brain seems muddled but I might have another solution, let me
ponder this for a bit..
Right, so the thing I was thinking about is taking the group
On Fri, 2010-04-16 at 15:58 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
Hrmm, my brain seems muddled but I might have another solution, let me
ponder this for a bit..
Right, so the thing I was thinking about is taking the group capacity
into account when determining the capacity for a single cpu.
Say
In message 1271426308.1674.429.ca...@laptop you wrote:
On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 14:28 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
Right, so I suspect this will indeed break some things.
We initially allowed 0 capacity for when a cpu is consumed by an RT task
and there simply isn't much capacity
On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 07:34 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
Are there any numbers available on how much they gain? It might be worth
to stick in real numbers instead of this alleged 15%.
I get some gain numbers but obviously the workloads makes a huge
difference. From a scheduler
In message 1271688543.1488.253.ca...@laptop you wrote:
On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 07:34 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
Are there any numbers available on how much they gain? It might be worth
to stick in real numbers instead of this alleged 15%.
I get some gain numbers but obviously the
In message 1271426308.1674.429.ca...@laptop you wrote:
On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 14:28 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
Right, so I suspect this will indeed break some things.
We initially allowed 0 capacity for when a cpu is consumed by an RT task
and there simply isn't much capacity
On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 14:28 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
Right, so I suspect this will indeed break some things.
We initially allowed 0 capacity for when a cpu is consumed by an RT task
and there simply isn't much capacity left, in that case you really want
to try and move load to
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 16:21 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
When calculating capacity we use the following calculation:
capacity = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(power, SCHED_LOAD_SCALE);
In SMT2, power will be 1178/2 (provided we are not scaling power with
freq say) and SCHED_LOAD_SCALE will be
In message 1271161766.4807.1280.ca...@twins you wrote:
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 16:21 +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
When calculating capacity we use the following calculation:
=20
capacity =3D DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(power, SCHED_LOAD_SCALE);
=20
In SMT2, power will be 1178/2 (provided we
When calculating capacity we use the following calculation:
capacity = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(power, SCHED_LOAD_SCALE);
In SMT2, power will be 1178/2 (provided we are not scaling power with
freq say) and SCHED_LOAD_SCALE will be 1024, resulting in capacity
being 1.
With SMT4 however, power
12 matches
Mail list logo
