Re: [PATCH] Load balancing problem in 2.6.2-mm1

[Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>]

Anton Blanchard wrote:

> 
>Hi,
>
>
>>The current imbalance code rounds up to 1, meaning that we'll often
>>see an "imbalance" of 1 even when it's 1 to 0 and just been moved.
>>Did you see these results even with Martin's patch to not round up to 1?
>>
>
>Indeed Martins patch does fix the problem:
>
>cpu    user  system    idle             cpu    user  system    idle
>cpu0      0       0     100             cpu1      0       0     100
>cpu2      0       0     100             cpu3      0       0     100
>cpu4      0       0     100             cpu5      0       0     100
>cpu6      0       0     100             cpu7      0       0     100
>cpu8      0       0     100             cpu9      0       0     100
>cpu10     0       0     100             cpu11     0       0     100
>cpu12     0       0     100             cpu13   100       0       0
>cpu14     0       0     100             cpu15     0       0     100
>
>My current tree has your patch and Martins patch. So far its looking
>good.
>
>

Rick's being the one I sent you?

Does active balancing still work? Ie. get two processes running on the
same physical CPU and see if one is migrated away.