On 11/27/2012 02:45 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi,
> On 11/27/2012 11:44 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
>> On 11/27/2012 11:08 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> On 11/27/2012 12:33 AM, Benjamin Segall wrote:
So, I've been trying out using the runnable averages for load balance in
On 11/27/2012 02:45 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
Hi,
On 11/27/2012 11:44 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
On 11/27/2012 11:08 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
Hi everyone,
On 11/27/2012 12:33 AM, Benjamin Segall wrote:
So, I've been trying out using the runnable averages for load balance in
a few ways, but
Hi,
On 11/27/2012 11:44 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 11/27/2012 11:08 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> On 11/27/2012 12:33 AM, Benjamin Segall wrote:
>>> So, I've been trying out using the runnable averages for load balance in
>>> a few ways, but haven't actually gotten any improvement
On 11/27/2012 11:08 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> On 11/27/2012 12:33 AM, Benjamin Segall wrote:
>> So, I've been trying out using the runnable averages for load balance in
>> a few ways, but haven't actually gotten any improvement on the
>> benchmarks I've run. I'll post my
Hi everyone,
On 11/27/2012 12:33 AM, Benjamin Segall wrote:
> So, I've been trying out using the runnable averages for load balance in
> a few ways, but haven't actually gotten any improvement on the
> benchmarks I've run. I'll post my patches once I have the numbers down,
> but it's generally
On 11/27/2012 03:03 AM, Benjamin Segall wrote:
> So, I've been trying out using the runnable averages for load balance in
> a few ways, but haven't actually gotten any improvement on the
> benchmarks I've run. I'll post my patches once I have the numbers down,
> but it's generally been about half
I ran it on tip/sched/core.
--
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/
On 11/27/2012 03:03 AM, Benjamin Segall wrote:
> So, I've been trying out using the runnable averages for load balance in
> a few ways, but haven't actually gotten any improvement on the
> benchmarks I've run. I'll post my patches once I have the numbers down,
> but it's generally been about half
So, I've been trying out using the runnable averages for load balance in
a few ways, but haven't actually gotten any improvement on the
benchmarks I've run. I'll post my patches once I have the numbers down,
but it's generally been about half a percent to 1% worse on the tests
I've tried.
The
So, I've been trying out using the runnable averages for load balance in
a few ways, but haven't actually gotten any improvement on the
benchmarks I've run. I'll post my patches once I have the numbers down,
but it's generally been about half a percent to 1% worse on the tests
I've tried.
The
On 11/27/2012 03:03 AM, Benjamin Segall wrote:
So, I've been trying out using the runnable averages for load balance in
a few ways, but haven't actually gotten any improvement on the
benchmarks I've run. I'll post my patches once I have the numbers down,
but it's generally been about half a
I ran it on tip/sched/core.
--
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/
On 11/27/2012 03:03 AM, Benjamin Segall wrote:
So, I've been trying out using the runnable averages for load balance in
a few ways, but haven't actually gotten any improvement on the
benchmarks I've run. I'll post my patches once I have the numbers down,
but it's generally been about half a
Hi everyone,
On 11/27/2012 12:33 AM, Benjamin Segall wrote:
So, I've been trying out using the runnable averages for load balance in
a few ways, but haven't actually gotten any improvement on the
benchmarks I've run. I'll post my patches once I have the numbers down,
but it's generally been
On 11/27/2012 11:08 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
Hi everyone,
On 11/27/2012 12:33 AM, Benjamin Segall wrote:
So, I've been trying out using the runnable averages for load balance in
a few ways, but haven't actually gotten any improvement on the
benchmarks I've run. I'll post my patches once I
Hi,
On 11/27/2012 11:44 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
On 11/27/2012 11:08 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
Hi everyone,
On 11/27/2012 12:33 AM, Benjamin Segall wrote:
So, I've been trying out using the runnable averages for load balance in
a few ways, but haven't actually gotten any improvement on the
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Preeti U Murthy
wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On 11/17/2012 06:34 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>> This patchset try to consider runnable load avg when do cpu load comparison
>> in load balance.
>>
>> I had seen preeti's enabling before patch finished, but I still think
>>
On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Preeti U Murthy
pre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Hi Alex,
On 11/17/2012 06:34 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
This patchset try to consider runnable load avg when do cpu load comparison
in load balance.
I had seen preeti's enabling before patch finished, but I still
Hi Alex,
On 11/17/2012 06:34 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> This patchset try to consider runnable load avg when do cpu load comparison
> in load balance.
>
> I had seen preeti's enabling before patch finished, but I still think
> considing
> runnable load avg on rq is may a more natrual way.
>
> BTW,
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:04:12 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> This patchset try to consider runnable load avg when do cpu load
> comparison in load balance.
I found the wording in the commit messages (pretty much all of them,
including the introductory message) rather confusing, especially patch
4/5.
This patchset try to consider runnable load avg when do cpu load comparison
in load balance.
I had seen preeti's enabling before patch finished, but I still think considing
runnable load avg on rq is may a more natrual way.
BTW, I am thinking if 2 times decay for cpu_load is too complicate? one
This patchset try to consider runnable load avg when do cpu load comparison
in load balance.
I had seen preeti's enabling before patch finished, but I still think considing
runnable load avg on rq is may a more natrual way.
BTW, I am thinking if 2 times decay for cpu_load is too complicate? one
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:04:12 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
This patchset try to consider runnable load avg when do cpu load
comparison in load balance.
I found the wording in the commit messages (pretty much all of them,
including the introductory message) rather confusing, especially patch
4/5.
Hi Alex,
On 11/17/2012 06:34 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
This patchset try to consider runnable load avg when do cpu load comparison
in load balance.
I had seen preeti's enabling before patch finished, but I still think
considing
runnable load avg on rq is may a more natrual way.
BTW, I am
24 matches
Mail list logo
