Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12 v1] A new CPU load metric for power-efficient scheduler: CPU ConCurrency
> So I should have just deleted all patches, for none of them has a > changelog. > It is my bad to not make changelogs in patches. The v2 has them, but I should have made them since always. > So all this cc crap only hooks into and modifies fair.c behaviour. There > is absolutely no reason it should live anywhere else except fair.c > > Secondly, the very last thing we need is more CONFIG_ goo, and you > sprinkle #ifdef around like it was gold dust. > Aggreed. I will change these. > Thirdly, wth is wrong with the current per-task runtime accounting and > why can't you extend/adapt that instead of duplicating the lot. > Sure. As you and Vincent said, CC will take a ride of current tracking codes instead of duplicating. > Fourthly, I'm _never_ going to merge anything that hijacks the load > balancer and does some random other thing. There's going to be a single > load-balancer full stop. > > Many people have expressed interest in a packing balancer (vs the > spreading we currently default to). Some have even done patches. > At the same time it seems very difficult to agree on _when_ packing > makes sense. That said, when we do packing we should do it driven by the > topology and policy, not by some compile time option. > I will make "Workload Consolidation" driven by topology and policy, essentially it is already so, but sure the codes are not completely clean in that regard. > Lastly, if you'd done your homework and actually read some of the > threads on the subject from say the past two years, you'd know pretty > much all that already. > > I'm not here to endlessly repeat myself and waste time staring at > unchangelogged patches. > This will not happen again. > Anyway, there might or might not be useful ideas in there.. but its very > hard to tell one way or another. I think the above is mostly about "amenability" to scheduler codes. Apparently, I am not doing it right. Will send another version to make it less hard. Thanks for your time. Yuyang -- 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/
Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12 v1] A new CPU load metric for power-efficient scheduler: CPU ConCurrency
On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 02:46:37AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > > The general code structure is an immediate no go. We're not going to > > bolt on anything like this. > > Could you please detail a little bit about general code structure? So I should have just deleted all patches, for none of them has a changelog. So all this cc crap only hooks into and modifies fair.c behaviour. There is absolutely no reason it should live anywhere else except fair.c Secondly, the very last thing we need is more CONFIG_ goo, and you sprinkle #ifdef around like it was gold dust. Thirdly, wth is wrong with the current per-task runtime accounting and why can't you extend/adapt that instead of duplicating the lot. Fourthly, I'm _never_ going to merge anything that hijacks the load balancer and does some random other thing. There's going to be a single load-balancer full stop. Many people have expressed interest in a packing balancer (vs the spreading we currently default to). Some have even done patches. At the same time it seems very difficult to agree on _when_ packing makes sense. That said, when we do packing we should do it driven by the topology and policy, not by some compile time option. Lastly, if you'd done your homework and actually read some of the threads on the subject from say the past two years, you'd know pretty much all that already. I'm not here to endlessly repeat myself and waste time staring at unchangelogged patches. Anyway, there might or might not be useful ideas in there.. but its very hard to tell one way or another. pgpbPmEncupJ3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12 v1] A new CPU load metric for power-efficient scheduler: CPU ConCurrency
> The general code structure is an immediate no go. We're not going to > bolt on anything like this. Could you please detail a little bit about general code structure? Thank you all the same, Yuyang -- 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/
Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12 v1] A new CPU load metric for power-efficient scheduler: CPU ConCurrency
On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 08:02:40AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > Hi Ingo, PeterZ, Rafael, and others, The general code structure is an immediate no go. We're not going to bolt on anything like this. I've yet to look at the content. -- 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/
