[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1267863715.22645.12.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 09:21:55 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.jf.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Yanmin Zhang <yanmin_zhang@...ux.jf.intel.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] sched: fix select_idle_sibling() logic in
select_task_rq_fair()
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 21:25 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 10:39 -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
>
> > c) Also, selelct_idle_sibling() should also treat the current cpu as an idle
> > cpu if it is a sync wakeup and we have only one task running.
>
> I'm going to have to crawl over and test the above, but this bit sounds
> like a decidedly un-good thing to do. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Nope, no misunderstanding. This patch does kill throughput gains. Once
awakened affine, always awaken affine is a bad idea.
I dug up my old P4 though. With it's wimpy siblings, the cost of
running two schedulers doesn't appear to be generally worth it at a
glance. You need considerable overlap to break even.
-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