On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 11:11:03AM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > @@ -5045,15 +5038,50 @@ static int need_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> >
> > static int active_load_balance_cpu_stop(void *data);
> >
> > +static int should_we_balance(stru
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> @@ -5045,15 +5038,50 @@ static int need_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
>
> static int active_load_balance_cpu_stop(void *data);
>
> +static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> +{
> + struct sched_group *sg = env->sd->groups;
>
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:31:41AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> @@ -5045,15 +5038,50 @@ static int need_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
>
> static int active_load_balance_cpu_stop(void *data);
>
> +static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> +{
> + struct sched_group *sg = env->sd-
From: Peter Zijlstra
So I have the below patch in front of all your patches. It contains the
10 or so sched,fair patches I posted to lkml the other day.
I used these to poke at the group_imb crud, am now digging through
traces of perf bench numa to see if there's anything else I need.
like said
4 matches
Mail list logo