On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 10:55:41AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > 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, r...@redhat.com wrote: > > > > From: Rik van Riel <r...@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?
Neither, I think the code is actually wrong for the case where LLC < NUMA (a somewhat rare case these days, granted, but something that might still happen on !x86 perhaps).
