Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261316AbVCFFnv (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Mar 2005 00:43:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261322AbVCFFnu (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Mar 2005 00:43:50 -0500 Received: from fmr21.intel.com ([143.183.121.13]:12777 "EHLO scsfmr001.sc.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261316AbVCFFns (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Mar 2005 00:43:48 -0500 Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 21:43:37 -0800 From: "Siddha, Suresh B" To: Nick Piggin Cc: Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] remove aggressive idle balancing Message-ID: <20050305214336.A9085@unix-os.sc.intel.com> References: <1109229491.5177.71.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <1109229542.5177.73.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <1109229650.5177.78.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <1109229700.5177.79.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <1109229760.5177.81.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <1109229867.5177.84.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <1109229935.5177.85.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <1109230031.5177.87.camel@npiggin-nld.site> <20050224084118.GB10023@elte.hu> <421DC4DA.7000102@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <421DC4DA.7000102@yahoo.com.au>; from nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au on Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:13:14PM +1100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1468 Lines: 40 On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:13:14PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > >> [PATCH 6/13] no aggressive idle balancing > >> > >> [PATCH 8/13] generalised CPU load averaging > >> [PATCH 9/13] less affine wakups > >> [PATCH 10/13] remove aggressive idle balancing > > > > > > they look fine, but these are the really scary ones :-) Maybe we could > > do #8 and #9 first, then #6+#10. But it's probably pointless to look at > > these in isolation. > > > > Oh yes, they are very scary and I guarantee they'll cause > problems :P By code inspection, I see an issue with this patch [PATCH 10/13] remove aggressive idle balancing Why are we removing cpu_and_siblings_are_idle check from active_load_balance? In case of SMT, we want to give prioritization to an idle package while doing active_load_balance(infact, active_load_balance will be kicked mainly because there is an idle package) Just the re-addition of cpu_and_siblings_are_idle check to active_load_balance might not be enough. We somehow need to communicate this to move_tasks, otherwise can_migrate_task will fail and we will never be able to do active_load_balance. thanks, suresh - 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/