Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue

From	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue
Date	2016-10-18 13:20 +0200
Message-ID	<stAB3-T8-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <sqFGW-8lV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sqI25-1gE-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <sqMIp-441-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sr2tQ-5vN-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <stzOG-lH-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:29:37AM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Oct, at 11:24:53AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > 
> > That's a lot more costly cross-DIE migrations. I think this patch is
> > along the right lines, but there's something fishy happening on this
> > box.
> 
> I wasn't really able to track down why this machine regressed, and the
> patch shows enough improvement for other boxes that I think it's worth
> sticking in tip/sched/core.
> 

I'm entirely lost as to which patch we're talking about by now ;-)

Thread

Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-10-18 12:30 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-18 13:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-10-18 13:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-18 14:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-10-19 08:40 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-19 17:30 +0200

csiph-web