lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC] sched: The removal of idle_balance()
From
Date
On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 04:42 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 16:54 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 08:14 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > (And puts a dent in x264 ultrafast)
>
> > What about my last patch? The one that avoids idle_balance() if the
> > previous task was in a task_uninterruptible state. That one gave the
> > same performance increase that removing idle_balance() did on my box.
>
> I didn't try it, figuring it was pretty much the same as turning it off,
> but just did. Patch (-typo) has no effect on either x264 or hackbench
> (surely will for -rt, but rt tasks here aren't sent to burn in rt hell).

So it had no effect to your tests? That's actually good, as if it has a
positive effect on some workloads and no effect on others, that's still
a net win.

-- Steve




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-18 17:01    [W:0.073 / U:0.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site