Re: cpu scheduler merge plans

[kernel]

Quoting Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>:

> 
> So it's that time again.  We need to decide which of the queued sched
> patches should be merged into 2.6.17.
> 
> I have:
> 
> sched-fix-task-interactivity-calculation.patch
> small-schedule-microoptimization.patch
> #
> sched-implement-smpnice.patch
> sched-smpnice-apply-review-suggestions.patch
> sched-smpnice-fix-average-load-per-run-queue-calculations.patch
> sched-store-weighted-load-on-up.patch
> sched-add-discrete-weighted-cpu-load-function.patch
> sched-add-above-background-load-function.patch
> # Suresh had problems
> # con:
> sched-cleanup_task_activated.patch
> sched-make_task_noninteractive_use_sleep_type.patch
> sched-dont_decrease_idle_sleep_avg.patch
> sched-include_noninteractive_sleep_in_idle_detect.patch
> sched-remove-on-runqueue-requeueing.patch
> sched-activate-sched-batch-expired.patch
> sched-reduce-overhead-of-calc_load.patch
> #
> sched-fix-interactive-task-starvation.patch

I'd like to see all of these up to this point go in. I can't comment on the
below directly.

> #
> # "strange load balancing problems": pwil3058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> sched-new-sched-domain-for-representing-multi-core.patch
> sched-fix-group-power-for-allnodes_domains.patch
> x86-dont-use-cpuid2-to-determine-cache-info-if-cpuid4-is-supported.patch
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what the "Suresh had problems" comment refers to - perhaps a
> now-removed patch.

On previous versions of smp nice Suresh found some throughput issues. Peter has
addressed these as far as I'm aware, but we really need Suresh to check all
those again.
> 
> afaik, the load balancing problem which Peter observed remains unresolved.

That was a multicore enabled balancing problem which he reported went away on a
later -mm.

Cheers,
Con

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/