On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 09:34 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> I think the construction stuff works fine, and !->sd is the perfect cue
> to tell various things to keep their grubby mitts off of a CPU.
Take idle_balance() for instance.. not much point in dropping rq->lock
just to take it again after d
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 15:28 +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
> Actually, what I have experiment is as:
> 1. set top cpuset as disable load balance
> 2. set 0-2 cpus to "system", and enable its load balance
> 3. set 3 cpu to "rt" and disable load balance.
Exactly as I do, pertinent part of my cheezy script b
Mike,
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 10:23 +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
>> Cpu which is put into quiescent mode, would remove itself
>> from kernel's sched_domain, and want others not disturb its
>> task running. But current scheduler would not checking wh
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 10:23 +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
> Cpu which is put into quiescent mode, would remove itself
> from kernel's sched_domain, and want others not disturb its
> task running. But current scheduler would not checking whether
> that cpu is setting in such mode, and still insist the quie
Cpu which is put into quiescent mode, would remove itself
from kernel's sched_domain, and want others not disturb its
task running. But current scheduler would not checking whether
that cpu is setting in such mode, and still insist the quiescent
cpu to response the nohz load balance.
Fix it by pre
5 matches
Mail list logo
