On 3 June 2014 13:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 07:06:44PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> > Could you detail those conditions? FWIW those make excellent Changelog
>> > material.
>>
>> I have looked back into my tests and traces:
>>
>> In a 1st test, the capacity of the CPU
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 07:06:44PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Could you detail those conditions? FWIW those make excellent Changelog
> > material.
>
> I have looked back into my tests and traces:
>
> In a 1st test, the capacity of the CPU was still above half default
> value (power=538) un
On 30 May 2014 08:29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:37:39PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 29 May 2014 11:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 05:53:04PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >> If the CPU is used for handling lot of IRQs, trig a load balanc
On 30 May 2014 21:45, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2014, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
>> On 30 May 2014 15:26, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> >> + /*
>> >> + * The group capacity is reduced probably because of activity from
>> >> other
>> >
>> > Here 'group capacity' refers to sgs->gro
On 30 May 2014 08:29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:37:39PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 29 May 2014 11:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 05:53:04PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >> If the CPU is used for handling lot of IRQs, trig a load balanc
On Fri, 30 May 2014, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 30 May 2014 15:26, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> >> + /*
> >> + * The group capacity is reduced probably because of activity from
> >> other
> >
> > Here 'group capacity' refers to sgs->group_power and not to
> > sgs->group_capacity, right?
>
On 30 May 2014 15:26, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 23/05/14 16:53, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> If the CPU is used for handling lot of IRQs, trig a load balance to check if
>> it's worth moving its tasks on another CPU that has more capacity
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
>> ---
>> kernel/sch
On 23/05/14 16:53, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> If the CPU is used for handling lot of IRQs, trig a load balance to check if
> it's worth moving its tasks on another CPU that has more capacity
>
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 13 +
> 1 file changed, 13 ins
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:37:39PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 29 May 2014 11:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 05:53:04PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> If the CPU is used for handling lot of IRQs, trig a load balance to check
> >> if
> >> it's worth moving its tas
On 29 May 2014 16:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 05:53:04PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> @@ -7282,6 +7289,12 @@ static inline int nohz_kick_needed(struct rq *rq)
>>
>> if (nr_busy > 1)
>> goto need_kick_unlock;
>> +
>> + if (
On 29 May 2014 11:50, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 05:53:04PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> If the CPU is used for handling lot of IRQs, trig a load balance to check if
>> it's worth moving its tasks on another CPU that has more capacity
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 05:53:04PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> @@ -7282,6 +7289,12 @@ static inline int nohz_kick_needed(struct rq *rq)
>
> if (nr_busy > 1)
> goto need_kick_unlock;
> +
> + if ((rq->cfs.h_nr_running >= 1)
> + && ((r
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 05:53:04PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> If the CPU is used for handling lot of IRQs, trig a load balance to check if
> it's worth moving its tasks on another CPU that has more capacity
>
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 13 +
>
If the CPU is used for handling lot of IRQs, trig a load balance to check if
it's worth moving its tasks on another CPU that has more capacity
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 13 +
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sc
14 matches
Mail list logo
