Re: [PATCH 7/6][RFC] sched: unify load_balance{,_newidle}()

[Mike Galbraith]

On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 16:13 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> load_balance() and load_balance_newidle() look remarkably similar, one
> key point they differ in is the condition on when to active balance.
> 
> So split out that logic into a separate function.
> 
> One side effect is that previously load_balance_newidle() used to fail and
> return -1 under these conditions, whereas now it doesn't. I've not yet fully
> figured out the whole -1 return case for either load_balance{,_newidle}().
> 
> It also differs in that sd->cache_nice_tries is now added on the 
> CPU_NEWLY_IDLE case.

Unification Looks like a good idea, less being more and all that.  I
suspect that last bit is why newidle effectiveness has been heavily
impacted.  x264 ultrafast testcase is whimpering pathetically again ;-)

	-Mike

--
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/