[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F0C5138.5010109@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 06:54:48 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Youquan Song <youquan.song@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
len.brown@...el.com, anhua.xu@...el.com, chaohong.guo@...el.com,
Youquan Song <youquan.song@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86,sched: Fix sched_smt_power_savings totally broken
On 1/10/2012 6:41 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 06:32 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>
>> a very good default would be to keep all tasks on one package until half
>> the cores in the package are busy, and then start spreading out.
>
> Does that still make sense when there's strong NUMA preference? By
> forcing stuff on a single package you increase the number of remote
> memory fetches (which generally generate more stalls), also the memory
> controllers need to stay awake anyway.
the memory controllers need to stake regardless of what you do;
it's more a memory bandwidth kind of thing.
if you have an enormous numa factor (>= 10 or so), then you really need
a completely different policy I suspect.
Thankfully those are rare.
--
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