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 10:23 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: 
> 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.

Yeah, for clarity, with "!" removed, there was zero effect to either
hackbench or x264 ultrafast.

-Mike



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-18 19:01    [W:0.096 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site