[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 06:01:18 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, riel@...hat.com,
mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
morten.rasmussen@....com, kernel-team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for
BALANCE_WAKE
On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 15:41 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> So the NO_WAKE_WIDE_IDLE results are very good, almost the same as the
> baseline with a slight regression at lower RPS and a slight improvement
> at high RPS.
Good. I can likely drop the rest then (I like dinky, so do CPUs;). I'm
not real keen on the feature unless your numbers are really good, and
odds are that ain't gonna happen.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists