From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934348Ab3FSJuV (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:50:21 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:1233 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933830Ab3FSJuT (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jun 2013 05:50:19 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,895,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="352248025" Message-ID: <51C17EA4.3030401@intel.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:49:24 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: Paul Turner , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Borislav Petkov , Namhyung Kim , Mike Galbraith , Morten Rasmussen , Vincent Guittot , Preeti U Murthy , Viresh Kumar , LKML , Mel Gorman , Rik van Riel , Michael Wang , Jason Low , Changlong Xie , sgruszka@redhat.com, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Weisbecker?= Subject: Re: [patch v8 9/9] sched/tg: remove blocked_load_avg in balance References: <1370589652-24549-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1370589652-24549-10-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <20130617140100.GZ3204@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> In-Reply-To: <20130617140100.GZ3204@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/17/2013 10:01 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 05:20:46AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Alex Shi wrote: >>> > > blocked_load_avg sometime is too heavy and far bigger than runnable load >>> > > avg, that make balance make wrong decision. So remove it. >> > >> > Ok so this is going to have terrible effects on the correctness of >> > shares distribution; I'm fairly opposed to it in its present form. > Should someone take a look at the LTP cgroup tests to make sure they > cover this properly? Seems I have no time on this in near future. :( But I were you, I would picked up this patch, since 1, it is simple and easy revert. 2, it wins in testing. 3, it will motivate Paul to look into this problem. ;) -- Thanks Alex