On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 03:56:25AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote: > So this is actually an interesting idea, but don't think of it as > overweight. What "cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg / 2" means is actually > blocked_load_avg one period from now. This is interesting because it > makes the (reasonable) supposition that blocked load is not about to > immediately wake, but will continue to decay. > > Could you try testing the gvr_lb_tip branch at > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pjt/sched-tip.git ? > > It's an extension to your series that tries to improve some of the > cpu_load interactions in an alternate way to the above. > > It seems a little better on one and two-socket machines; but we > couldn't reproduce/compare to your best performance results since they > were taken on larger machines.
Oh nice.. it does away with the entire cpu_load[] array thing. Just what Frederic needs for his NOHZ stuff as well -- he's currently abusing LB_BIAS for that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
