Re: smp 'nice' bias support breaks scheduler behavior

["Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 12:54:53PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote:
> It's not my decision to keep Peter's patch out of mainline. If you can make a 
> strong enough case for it then Linus will merge it up even though it's after 
> rc1. 

I don't want to push Peters patch to 2.6.16, as I haven't tested much.

> Otherwise I'll let Ingo decide on whether to pull the current 
> implementation or not - you're saying that with the one thing you described 
> that misbehaves that it is doing more harm than fixing smp nice handling.

Are we sure that it really fixes smp nice handling? Its not just one 
scenario(bouncing processes on a lightly loaded system), I am talking about. 
Imbalance calculations will be wrong even on a completely loaded system.. 
Are you sure that there are no perf regressions with your patch..

Sorry for commenting on this patch so late.. I was on a very long vacation.
I think it is safe to back that out for 2.6.16 and do more work and get it
in 2.6.17.

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