On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:25:34AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2013/6/28 Peter Zijlstra :
> > 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 i
2013/6/28 Peter Zijlstra :
> 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 becaus
On 06/29/2013 12:00 AM, Paul Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Alex Shi 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 interesti
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Alex Shi 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) suppositi
On 06/28/2013 07:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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 i
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) sup
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 06/24/2013 06:40 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
>>> > Ingo & Peter,
>>> >
>>> > This patchset was discussed spread and deeply.
>>> >
>>> > Now just 6th/8th patch has some arguments on them, Paul think it is
>>> > better to consider blocked_load_avg in
>> >
>> > [Resend patch v8 01/13] Revert "sched: Introduce temporary
>> > [Resend patch v8 02/13] sched: move few runnable tg variables into
>> > [Resend patch v8 03/13] sched: set initial value of runnable avg for
>> > [Resend patch v8 04/13] sched: fix slept time double counting in
>> > [Resend
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:18:44AM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> Resend patchset for more convenient pick up.
> This patch set combine 'use runnable load in balance' serials and 'change
> 64bit variables to long type' serials. also collected Reviewed-bys, and
> Tested-bys.
>
> The only changed code i
On 06/24/2013 11:37 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 06/24/2013 06:40 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
Ingo & Peter,
This patchset was discussed spread and deeply.
Now just 6th/8th patch has some arguments on them, Paul think it is
better to consider blocked_load_avg in balance, since i
On 06/24/2013 06:40 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
>> > Ingo & Peter,
>> >
>> > This patchset was discussed spread and deeply.
>> >
>> > Now just 6th/8th patch has some arguments on them, Paul think it is
>> > better to consider blocked_load_avg in balance, since it is helpful on
>> > some scenarios, but I
On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 06/20/2013 10:18 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
>> Resend patchset for more convenient pick up.
>> This patch set combine 'use runnable load in balance' serials and 'change
>> 64bit variables to long type' serials. also collected Reviewed-bys, and
>> Test
On 06/20/2013 10:18 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
> Resend patchset for more convenient pick up.
> This patch set combine 'use runnable load in balance' serials and 'change
> 64bit variables to long type' serials. also collected Reviewed-bys, and
> Tested-bys.
>
> The only changed code is fixing load to l
13 matches
Mail list logo
