Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751615AbdFZOzv (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:55:51 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34316 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751386AbdFZOzo (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:55:44 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com E3B1580468 Authentication-Results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx04.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=riel@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com E3B1580468 Message-ID: <1498488941.13083.43.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched,fair: remove effective_load From: Rik van Riel To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jhladky@redhat.com, mingo@kernel.org, mgorman@suse.de Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 10:55:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170626144611.GA5775@worktop> References: <20170623165530.22514-1-riel@redhat.com> <20170623165530.22514-5-riel@redhat.com> <20170626144437.GB4941@worktop> <20170626144611.GA5775@worktop> Organization: Red Hat, Inc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Mon, 26 Jun 2017 14:55:44 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 884 Lines: 24 On Mon, 2017-06-26 at 16:46 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 04:44:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 12:55:30PM -0400, riel@redhat.com wrote: > > > From: Rik van Riel > > > > > > The function effective_load was only used by the NUMA balancing > > > code, and not by the regular load balancing code. Now that the > > > NUMA balancing code no longer uses it either, get rid of it. > > > > Hmm,... funny. It used to be used by wake-affine. I'll have to go > > check > > what happened. > > Ah, it fell pray to that LLC == NUMA confusion from the previous > patch. > > That really looks buggered. Do the changelog or comments of that patch need fixing, to avoid LLC / NUMA confusion? I remember us talking about that in the past, but I do not remember whether or not I changed the comments after that discussion...