Re: [PATCH 10/13] remove aggressive idle balancing

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>[PATCH 6/13] no aggressive idle balancing
> >>
> >>[PATCH 8/13] generalised CPU load averaging
> >>[PATCH 9/13] less affine wakups
> >>[PATCH 10/13] remove aggressive idle balancing
> >
> >
> >they look fine, but these are the really scary ones :-) Maybe we could
> >do #8 and #9 first, then #6+#10. But it's probably pointless to look at
> >these in isolation.
> >
> 
> Oh yes, they are very scary and I guarantee they'll cause
> problems :P

:-|

> I didn't have any plans to get these in for 2.6.12 (2.6.13 at the very
> earliest). But it will be nice if Andrew can pick these up early so we
> try to get as much regression testing as possible.
> 
> I pretty much agree with your ealier breakdown of the patches (ie.
> some are fixes, others fairly straightfoward improvements that may get
> into 2.6.12, of course). Thanks very much for the review.
> 
> I expect to rework the patches, and things will get tuned and changed
> around a bit... Any problem with you taking these now though Andrew?

sure, fine with me.

	Ingo