On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 09:09:30AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Scott Cheloha <scottchel...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > How about this. Kill the spc_ldavg calculation. Its use is more then > > > > questionable. The cpu selection code using this is not wroking well and > > > > process stealing will do the rest. > > > > This is more or less what I said yesterday. The per-CPU load average > > is not useful for deciding where to put a thread. > > I guess you have not been reading mpi's scheduler diff. The entire idea > of "placing a thread" is 1980's single-processor flawed.
Dude, I'm not talking about mpi's patch, I'm talking about what's in the tree. Given the current state of the scheduler, we can throw out spc_ldavg. It isn't necessary. > > Of the variables we > > have available to consider, only the current length of the runqueue is > > useful. > > No, that concept is also broken. Again, I am talking about the current scheduler. Said another way: the current approach can limp along just fine using only the runqueue length. We can get rid of spc_ldavg without worrying about it.
