From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753982Ab3BRPXN (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:23:13 -0500 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:5285 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753724Ab3BRPXL (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:23:11 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=UN5f7Vjy c=1 sm=0 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:17 a=mNMOxpOpBa8A:10 a=MPEKn9ueenIA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=zGjexpQmzOwA:10 a=3-v-330or6qoVSpEtHYA:9 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 74.67.115.198 Message-ID: <1361200989.23152.150.camel@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: The removal of idle_balance() From: Steven Rostedt To: Mike Galbraith Cc: LKML , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Paul Turner , Frederic Weisbecker , Andrew Morton , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Clark Williams , Andrew Theurer Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:23:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1361158953.14352.17.camel@marge.simpson.net> References: <1360908819.23152.97.camel@gandalf.local.home> <1360913172.4736.20.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1361031150.23152.133.camel@gandalf.local.home> <1361082363.6088.21.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1361085245.28353.3.camel@marge.simpson.net> <1361138089.23152.141.camel@gandalf.local.home> <1361158953.14352.17.camel@marge.simpson.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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