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

From: Nick Piggin
Date: Tue Mar 30 2004 - 20:59:07 EST

Andi Kleen wrote:
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at