On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 18:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Also note that your use of task_h_load() in the new numa thing
> suffers
> from exactly the problem effective_load() is trying to solve.
Thinking about this some more, I suspect that
using effective_load() in combination with
select_idle_
On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 07:39 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 03:34:49PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 18:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:20:54AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oh, indeed. I guess in wake_affin
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 03:34:49PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 18:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:20:54AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, indeed. I guess in wake_affine() we should test
> > > whether the CPUs are in the same NUMA node
On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 18:12 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:20:54AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > Oh, indeed. I guess in wake_affine() we should test
> > whether the CPUs are in the same NUMA node, rather than
> > doing cpus_share_cache() ?
>
> Well, since select_idl
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:20:54AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Oh, indeed. I guess in wake_affine() we should test
> whether the CPUs are in the same NUMA node, rather than
> doing cpus_share_cache() ?
Well, since select_idle_sibling() is on LLC; the early test on
cpus_share_cache(prev,this) se
On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 17:04 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:55:41AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 16:46 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:44:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:55:30PM -040
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:55:41AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 16:46 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:44:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:55:30PM -0400, r...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > > From: Rik van Riel
> > > >
>
On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 16:46 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:44:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:55:30PM -0400, r...@redhat.com wrote:
> > > From: Rik van Riel
> > >
> > > The function effective_load was only used by the NUMA balancing
> >
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:44:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:55:30PM -0400, r...@redhat.com wrote:
> > From: Rik van Riel
> >
> > The function effective_load was only used by the NUMA balancing
> > code, and not by the regular load balancing code. Now that the
> >
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:55:30PM -0400, r...@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Rik van Riel
>
> The function effective_load was only used by the NUMA balancing
> code, and not by the regular load balancing code. Now that the
> NUMA balancing code no longer uses it either, get rid of it.
Hmm,... funny.
From: Rik van Riel
The function effective_load was only used by the NUMA balancing
code, and not by the regular load balancing code. Now that the
NUMA balancing code no longer uses it either, get rid of it.
Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 124 +
11 matches
Mail list logo
