Re: [Lse-tech] [patch] sched-domain cleanups, sched-2.6.5-rc2-mm2-A3

Nick Piggin
2004-03-31T01:57:11Z

Andi Kleen wrote:
> Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> writes:
>
>
>>I'm with Martin here, we are just about to merge all this
>>sched-domains stuff. So we should at least wait until after
>>that. And of course, *nothing* gets changed without at least
>>one benchmark that shows it improves something. So far
>>nobody has come up to the plate with that.
>
>
> Hmm? I post numbers all the time.
>

Yeah I know - it just so happened that you got *worse*
performance from Ingo's balance-on-clone than by simply
decreasing the balancing interval just now :P

Although it is probably just because balance-on-clone is
not tuned well.

I've said all along that it will probably be a good thing
to do if it is implemented correctly, but 1. we need some
good numbers, and 2. let's not stuff it in at the same
time sched-domains goes in because it is a fundamentally
different concept.