On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:15:55AM -0500, James Hartsock wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 3:24 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:35:46AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > well this is issue our partner met in the setup,
> > > and I'm not sure what was their motivation for that
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:35:46AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> well this is issue our partner met in the setup,
> and I'm not sure what was their motivation for that,
> perhaps James could clarify in here..
>
> I tried to make the 'scratch that itch' solution as
> mentioned in earlier discussion.
>
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:58:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:15:13PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > Sched domains are defined at the start and can't be changed
> > during runtime.
>
> Not entirely true; you can change them using cpusets, although there are
> strict con
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:15:13PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> Sched domains are defined at the start and can't be changed
> during runtime.
Not entirely true; you can change them using cpusets, although there are
strict constraints on how and you can only make the 'problem' worse.
> If user define
Adding rebalance_affinity function that place tasks
based on their cpus_allowed with following logic.
Current load balancing places tasks on runqueues based
on their weight to achieve balance within sched domains.
Sched domains are defined at the start and can't be changed
during runtime. If user
5 matches
Mail list logo
