[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1321495153.5100.7.camel@marge.simson.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:59:13 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: sched: Avoid SMT siblings in select_idle_sibling() if possible
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 10:37 -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 01:24 -0800, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > At SIBLING, group = 0,4 = 0x5, 0x5 & 0xff = 1 = target.
>
> Mike, At the sibling level, domain span will be 0,4 which is 0x5. But
> there are two individual groups. First group just contains cpu0 and the
> second group contains cpu4.
>
> So if cpu0 is busy, we will check the next group to see if it is idle
> (which is cpu4 in your example). So we will return cpu-4.
Oh duh, right.
> It should be ok. Isn't it?
Nope, wasn't ok. I'll double check today though, and bend, spindle
and/or mutilate as required.
-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