Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 13:22:31 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        Clark Williams <clark.williams@gmail.com>,
        "tony.luck@intel.com" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Resend patch v8 0/13] use runnable load in schedule balance
Message-ID: <20131028122231.GM19466@laptop.lan>
References: <1371694737-29336-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com>
 <51C7B9B8.6090309@intel.com>
 <CAPM31RKq4sVR2_mU8PWx8dK+STQDj3Geyi8dVg3MnL=ymjfV6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <51C867CF.70908@intel.com>
 <CAPM31RLTrQ_E6VAwO000zcL09F1oV7vgkjTJXY9wPC-pZ_6h0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20130628110730.GA6626@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAFTL4hxSfWOb_DVryjGY4hgsaoBFi7zfbKuJC6eMk4+4nQOf-Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFTL4hxSfWOb_DVryjGY4hgsaoBFi7zfbKuJC6eMk4+4nQOf-Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1702
Lines: 37

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:25:34AM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 2013/6/28 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>:
> > 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) supposition that blocked load is not about to
> >> immediately wake, but will continue to decay.
> >>
> >> Could you try testing the gvr_lb_tip branch at
> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pjt/sched-tip.git ?
> >>
> >> It's an extension to your series that tries to improve some of the
> >> cpu_load interactions in an alternate way to the above.
> >>
> >> It seems a little better on one and two-socket machines; but we
> >> couldn't reproduce/compare to your best performance results since they
> >> were taken on larger machines.
> >
> > Oh nice.. it does away with the entire cpu_load[] array thing. Just what
> > Frederic needs for his NOHZ stuff as well -- he's currently abusing
> > LB_BIAS for that.
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> Is there any updates on the status of this work? I'm getting back on
> fixing the cpu_load for full dynticks and this patchset was apparently
> taking care of that.

I talked to PJT about this last week, he said Ben was looking (or going
to look into) this sometime 'soon' iirc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/