* Nick Piggin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Once we've gone to the trouble of deciding which tasks to move and how
> >many (and the estimate should be very conservative), and locked the source
> >and destination runqueues, it is a very good idea to follow up with our
> >threat of actually moving the tasks rather than bail out early.
>
> Oh, I forgot: Ingo once introduced some code to bail early (though for
> different reasons and under different conditions), and this actually
> was found to cause significant regressions in some database workloads.
well, we both did changes with that effect - pretty much any change in
this area can cause a regression on _some_ workload ;) So there wont be
any silver bullet.
> So it is not a nice thing to tinker with unless there is good reason.
unbound latencies with hardirqs off are obviously a good reason - but i
agree that the solution is not good enough, yet.
Ingo
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
