Re: [RFC] sched: The removal of idle_balance()

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 04:42 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 16:54 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-02-17 at 08:14 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > 
> > > (And puts a dent in x264 ultrafast) 
>  
> > What about my last patch? The one that avoids idle_balance() if the
> > previous task was in a task_uninterruptible state. That one gave the
> > same performance increase that removing idle_balance() did on my box.
> 
> I didn't try it, figuring it was pretty much the same as turning it off,
> but just did.  Patch (-typo) has no effect on either x264 or hackbench
> (surely will for -rt, but rt tasks here aren't sent to burn in rt hell).

So it had no effect to your tests? That's actually good, as if it has a
positive effect on some workloads and no effect on others, that's still
a net win.

-- Steve


--
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/