lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/11] remove cpu_load in rq

>> Removing cpu_load completely certainly makes things simpler, my worry is
>> just how much was lost by doing it. I agree that cpu_load needs a
>> cleanup, but I can't convince myself that just removing it completely
>> and not having any longer term view of cpu load anymore is without any
>> negative side-effects.
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> Have you followed this thread about load_idx and the interest of using
> them to use different average period ?
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/1/6/499

Yes, I hoped to use blocked load before. But I still can not figure out
the correct usage of it.
Or maybe we need more quick decay for blocked load?
Or, maybe clean cpu_load is helpful to make room to reconsider this.
>
> Vincent
>
>>
>> {source, target}_load() are now instantaneous views of the cpu load,
>> which means that they may change very frequently. That could potentially
>> lead to more task migrations at all levels in the domain hierarchy as we
>> no longer have the more conservative cpu_load[] indexes that were used
>> at NUMA level.
>>
>> Maybe some of the NUMA experts have an opinion about this?
>>
>> In the discussions around V1 I think blocked load came up again as a
>> potential replacement for the current cpu_load array. There are some
>> issues that need to be solved around blocked_load first though.
>>
>> Morten


--
Thanks
Alex


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-19 12:41    [W:0.092 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site