|| ||Peter Zijlstra <peterz-AT-infradead.org> |
|| ||Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa-AT-linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
|| ||Re: [PATCH] sched: balance_cpu to consider other cpus in its group
as target of (pinned) task migration |
|| ||Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:51:35 +0200|
|| ||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>|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Mon, 2012-06-04 at 17:11 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <email@example.com> [2012-06-04 11:00:54]:
> > > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > 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 ;-)
to post comments)