On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 02:27:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 02:36:09PM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > > We intercept load balancing to contain the load and load balancing in > > the consolidated CPUs according to our consolidating mechanism. > > > > In wakeup/fork/exec load balaning, when to find the idlest sched_group, > > we first try to find the consolidated group > > Anything with intercept in is a complete non-starter. You still fully > duplicate the logic. > > You really didn't get anything I said, did you? > > Please as to go back to square 1 and read again. > > So take a step back and try and explain what and why you're doing > things, also try and look at what other people are doing. If I see > another patch from you within two weeks I'll simply delete it, there's > no way you can read up and fix everything in such a short time.
Hi Peter, Thanks for your reply, it hurts though, :( I was concerned about what you said back, which should be this one: PeterZ: Fourthly, I'm _never_ going to merge anything that hijacks the load balancer and does some random other thing. There's going to be a single load-balancer full stop. But some explanation to this interception/hijack. It is driven by a sched policy (SD_WORKLOAD_CONSOLIDATION) and the resulting effect of that policy if enabled, or still part of the load balancer. Can't do/call it that way? Thanks, Yuyang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
