public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 18:40:11 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050729164011.GA12138@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <42E9ED47.1030003@yahoo.com.au>


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

> Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
> >Nick Piggin wrote on Thursday, July 28, 2005 7:01 PM
> 
> >This clearly outlines an issue with the implementation.  Optimize for one
> >type of workload has detrimental effect on another workload and vice versa.
> >
> 
> Yep. That comes up fairly regularly when tuning the scheduler :(

in this particular case we can clearly separate the two workloads 
though: CPU-overload (Ken's benchmark) vs. half-load (3-task tbench). So 
by checking for migration target/source idleness we can have a hard 
separator for wakeup balancing. (whether it works out for both types of 
workloads remains to be seen)

	Ingo

  parent reply	other threads:[~2005-07-29 16:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-07-28 23:08 Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-28 23:34 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-28 23:48   ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29  1:25     ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29  1:39       ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29  1:46         ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29  1:53           ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29  2:01             ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29  6:27               ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29  8:48                 ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29  8:53                   ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29  8:59                     ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-29  9:01                       ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29  9:07                   ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 16:40                   ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-07-29 11:48                 ` [patch] remove wake-balancing Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 14:13                   ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 15:02                     ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #2 Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 16:21                       ` [sched, patch] better wake-balancing, #3 Ingo Molnar
2005-07-30  0:08                         ` Nick Piggin
2005-07-30  7:19                           ` Ingo Molnar
2005-07-31  1:15                             ` Nick Piggin
2005-08-01 17:13                               ` Siddha, Suresh B
2005-08-08 23:18                             ` Chen, Kenneth W
2005-07-29 11:26 ` Delete scheduler SD_WAKE_AFFINE and SD_WAKE_BALANCE flags Ingo Molnar
2005-07-29 17:30   ` Chen, Kenneth W

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20050729164011.GA12138@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=kenneth.w.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox