Re: [RFC PATCH 13/16 v3] Intercept wakeup/fork/exec load balancing

[Yuyang Du]

On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 02:27:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 02:36:09PM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > We intercept load balancing to contain the load and load balancing in
> > the consolidated CPUs according to our consolidating mechanism.
> > 
> > In wakeup/fork/exec load balaning, when to find the idlest sched_group,
> > we first try to find the consolidated group
> 
> Anything with intercept in is a complete non-starter. You still fully
> duplicate the logic.
> 
> You really didn't get anything I said, did you?
> 
> Please as to go back to square 1 and read again.
> 
> So take a step back and try and explain what and why you're doing
> things, also try and look at what other people are doing. If I see
> another patch from you within two weeks I'll simply delete it, there's
> no way you can read up and fix everything in such a short time.

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your reply, it hurts though, :(

I was concerned about what you said back, which should be this one:

PeterZ: Fourthly, I'm _never_ going to merge anything that hijacks the load balancer
and does some random other thing. There's going to be a single load-balancer
full stop.

But some explanation to this interception/hijack. It is driven by a sched
policy (SD_WORKLOAD_CONSOLIDATION) and the resulting effect of that policy if
enabled, or still part of the load balancer. Can't do/call it that way?

Thanks,
Yuyang
--
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/