DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 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 <riel@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@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 <riel@redhat.com>
> > > 
> > > 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...