Re: [Patch] don't kick ALB in the presence of pinned task

Ingo Molnar wrote:

* Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:

Hmm, I would have hoped the new "all_pinned" logic should have handled this case properly. [...]

no, active_balance is a different case, not covered by the all_pinned logic. This is a HT-special scenario, where busiest->nr_running == 1, and we have to do active load-balancing. This does not go through move_tasks() and does not set all_pinned. (If nr_running werent 1 we'd not have to kick active load-balancing.)

Yeah I see. It looks like Suresh's patch should do a reasonable
job at doing "all pinned backoff" too, using the existing logic.
So I agree - great catch.

--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -

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

---

• References:
  • [Patch] don't kick ALB in the presence of pinned task
    • From: "Siddha, Suresh B" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Patch] don't kick ALB in the presence of pinned task
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: [Patch] don't kick ALB in the presence of pinned task
    • From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Crash in ide_do_request() on card removal
• Next by Date: Re: Calling suspend() in halt/restart/shutdown -> not a good idea
• Previous by thread: Re: [Patch] don't kick ALB in the presence of pinned task
• Next by thread: Re: [Patch] don't kick ALB in the presence of pinned task
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]