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

[Nick Piggin]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/