On Mon, 2013-01-07 at 10:59 +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> Thank you very much for your inputs.Just a few thoughts so that we are
> clear with the problems so far in the scheduler scalability and in what
> direction we ought to move to correct them.
>
> 1. During fork or exec,the sche
On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 16:08 +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thank you very much for your feedback.Considering your suggestions,I have
> posted out a
> proposed solution to prevent select_idle_sibling() from becoming a
> disadvantage to normal
> load balancing,rather aiding it.
>
On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 09:13 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> I still have a 2.6-rt problem I need to find time to squabble with, but
> maybe I'll soonish see if what you did plus what I did combined works
> out on that 4x10 core box where current is _so_ unbelievably horrible.
> H
On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 16:08 +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thank you very much for your feedback.Considering your suggestions,I have
> posted out a
> proposed solution to prevent select_idle_sibling() from becoming a
> disadvantage to normal
> load balancing,rather aiding it.
>
On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 16:08 +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] sched: Merge select_idle_sibling with the behaviour of
> SD_BALANCE_WAKE
>
> The function of select_idle_sibling() is to place the woken up task in the
> vicinity of the waking cpu or on the previous cpu depending on wh
On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 09:52 +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> I have been looking at how different workloads react when the per entity
> load tracking metric is integrated into the load balancer and what are
> the possible reasons for it.
>
> I had posted the integration patch earlie
On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 11:43 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 14 December 2012 08:45, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 14:36 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> >> On 12/14/2012 12:45 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> >> > Do you have further
On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 22:25 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 12/13/2012 06:11 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 13 December 2012 03:17, Alex Shi wrote:
> >> On 12/12/2012 09:31 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >>> During the creation of sched_domain, we define a pack buddy CPU for each
> >>> CPU
> >>> wh
On Fri, 2012-12-14 at 14:36 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 12/14/2012 12:45 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> > Do you have further ideas for buddy cpu on such example?
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Which kind of sched_domain configuration have you for such
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 10:19 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 08:49 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 06:11 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On tickless system, one CPU runs load balance for all idle CPUs.
> > > The cpu_
On Thu, 2012-09-13 at 06:11 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On tickless system, one CPU runs load balance for all idle CPUs.
> The cpu_load of this CPU is updated before starting the load balance
> of each other idle CPUs. We should instead update the cpu_load of the
> balance_cpu.
>
> Signed-of
11 matches
Mail list logo
