From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753715Ab3A1PUB (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:20:01 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:37086 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750751Ab3A1PT6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Jan 2013 10:19:58 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 16:22:41 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Mike Galbraith Cc: Alex Shi , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, pjt@google.com, namhyung@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch v4 0/18] sched: simplified fork, release load avg and power awareness scheduling Message-ID: <20130128152241.GC6109@pd.tnic> Mail-Followup-To: Borislav Petkov , Mike Galbraith , Alex Shi , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, pjt@google.com, namhyung@kernel.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1359261385.5803.46.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20130127103508.GB8894@pd.tnic> <51052ACB.3070703@intel.com> <1359301903.5805.11.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1359350266.5783.39.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20130128095501.GB6109@pd.tnic> <1359369884.5783.117.camel@marge.simpson.net> <20130128112922.GA29384@pd.tnic> <1359372743.5783.136.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1359373246.5783.138.camel@marge.simpson.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1359373246.5783.138.camel@marge.simpson.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:40:46PM +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > No no, that's not restricted to one node. It's just overloaded because > > I turned balancing off at the NODE domain level. > > Which shows only that I was multitasking, and in a rush. Boy was that > dumb. Hohum. Ok, let's take a step back and slow it down a bit so that people like me can understand it: you want to try it with disabled load balancing on the node level, AFAICT. But with that many tasks, perf will suck anyway, no? Unless you want to benchmark the numa-aware aspect and see whether load balancing on the node level feels differently, perf-wise? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine. --