Hi Juri,
On 01/10/2019 14:31, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi Valentin,
>
> On 01/10/19 11:29, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> (expanded the Cc list)
>> RT/DL folks, any thought on the thing?
>
> Even if I like your idea and it looks theoretically the right thing to
> do, I'm not sure we want it in
Hi Valentin,
On 01/10/19 11:29, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> (expanded the Cc list)
> RT/DL folks, any thought on the thing?
Even if I like your idea and it looks theoretically the right thing to
do, I'm not sure we want it in practice if it adds complexity to CFS.
I personally never noticed
(expanded the Cc list)
RT/DL folks, any thought on the thing?
On 15/08/2019 15:51, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Vincent's load balance rework [1] got me thinking about how and where we
> use rq.nr_running vs rq.cfs.h_nr_running checks, and this lead me to
> stare intently at the active load
Vincent's load balance rework [1] got me thinking about how and where we
use rq.nr_running vs rq.cfs.h_nr_running checks, and this lead me to
stare intently at the active load balancer.
I haven't seen it happen (yet), but from reading the code it really looks
like we can have some scenarios where
4 matches
Mail list logo
