On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:23:42AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:03:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 04:20:18PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > --- > > > + src_eff_load = 100 + (imbalance_pct - 100) / 2; > > > + src_eff_load *= power_of(src_cpu); > > > + src_eff_load *= src_load + effective_load(tg, src_cpu, -weight, -weight); > > > > So did you try with this effective_load() term 'missing'? > > > > Yes, it performed worse in tests. Looking at it, I figured that it would > have to perform worse unless effective_load regularly returns negative > values. In this case it would return negative, seeing as we put a negative in. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>