Re: [PATCH] sched: balance_cpu to consider other cpus in its group
as target of (pinned) task migration
[Posted June 6, 2012 by corbet]
| From: |
| Peter Zijlstra <peterz-AT-infradead.org> |
| To: |
| Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa-AT-linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [PATCH] sched: balance_cpu to consider other cpus in its group
as target of (pinned) task migration |
| Date: |
| Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:51:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID: |
| <1338810695.28282.30.camel@twins> |
| Cc: |
| Prashanth Nageshappa <prashanth-AT-linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
mingo-AT-kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>,
roland-AT-kernel.org, efault-AT-gmx.de, Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu> |
| Archive-link: |
| Article, Thread
|
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 17:11 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> [2012-06-04 11:00:54]:
>
> > > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >
> > Did vatsa write this patch?
>
> I wrote the first version of the patch which Prashanth took, tested,
> fixed a bug and is finally publishing it. So yes,
>
> > If so, you forgot a From header, if not, wtf!?
>
> it is missing the From header.
>
> > OK, so previously we only pulled to ourselves,
>
> That't not entirely true isn't it i.e this_cpu need not equal
> smp_processor_id even before this change.
>
> > now you make cpu x move
> > from cpu y to cpu z. This changes the dynamic of the load-balancer, not
> > a single word on that and its impact/ramifications.
>
> The other possibility is for the right sibling cpus to do load balance
> in the same domain (noting that it needs to pull a task from another
> sched_group to itself and ignoring balance_cpu). That seemed like a more
> invasive change than this patch. We'd be happy to try any other approach
> you have in mind.
Thing is, first thing on Monday morning my brain don't work too fast. If
I then get to basically reverse engineer a patch because people forgot
to mention all the important bits, I get annoyed.
So don't do that ;-)
(
Log in to post comments)