On 10/26/2012 06:37 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijls...@chello.nl> wrote: > >> [...] >> >> So a sane series would introduce maybe two functions: >> cpu_load() and task_load() and use those where we now use >> rq->load.weight and p->se.load.weight for load balancing >> purposes. Implement these functions using those two >> expression. So effectively this patch is a NOP. >> >> Secondly, switch these two functions over to the per-task >> based averages. >> >> Tada! all done. The load balancer will then try and equalize >> effective load instead of instant load. >> >> It will do the 3x10% vs 100% thing correctly with just those >> two patches. Simply because it will report a lower cpu-load >> for the 3x10% case than it will for the 100% case, no need to >> go fudge about in the load-balance internals. >> >> Once you've got this correctly done, you can go change >> balancing to better utilize the new metric, like use the >> effective load instead of nr_running against the capacity and >> things like that. But for every such change you want to be >> very careful and run all the benchmarks you can find -- in >> fact you want to do that after the 2nd patch too. > > If anyone posted that simple two-patch series that switches over > to the new load metrics I'd be happy to test the performance of > those. > > Having two parallel load metrics is really not something that we > should tolerate for too long. > > Thanks, > > Ingo > Right Ingo.I will incorporate this approach and post out very soon.
Thank you Regards Preeti -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
