On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:25:38AM -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 14:42 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:39:46AM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 03:45:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 25, 20
On Fri, 2016-08-26 at 14:42 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:39:46AM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 03:45:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 02:18:37PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:39:46AM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 03:45:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 02:18:37PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> >
> > > But why not just pass the customized list into the scheduler? Seems
> > > simpler?
> >
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 03:45:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 02:18:37PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>
> > But why not just pass the customized list into the scheduler? Seems
> > simpler?
>
> Mostly because I didn't want to regress Power I suppose. The ITMT stuff
>
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 02:18:37PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> But why not just pass the customized list into the scheduler? Seems
> simpler?
Mostly because I didn't want to regress Power I suppose. The ITMT stuff
needs an extra load, whereas the Power stuff can use the CPU number we
already
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 01:45:22PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:22:52PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > I haven't reviewed the entire patch set in detail, but why can't the cpu
> > priority list be handed to the scheduler instead of moving scheduling
> > decisions ou
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:22:52PM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> I haven't reviewed the entire patch set in detail, but why can't the cpu
> priority list be handed to the scheduler instead of moving scheduling
> decisions out of the scheduler?
It basically does that. All that we allow here is t
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 03:36:44PM -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> From: Tim Chen
>
> We generalize the scheduler's asym packing to provide an
> ordering of the cpu beyond just the cpu number. This allows
> the use of the ASYM_PACKING scheduler machinery to move
> loads to prefered CPU in a
From: Tim Chen
We generalize the scheduler's asym packing to provide an
ordering of the cpu beyond just the cpu number. This allows
the use of the ASYM_PACKING scheduler machinery to move
loads to prefered CPU in a sched domain based on a preference
defined by sched_asym_prefer function.
We als
9 matches
Mail list logo