[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120306091410.GD27238@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:14:11 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: sched: Avoid SMT siblings in select_idle_sibling() if possible
* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> [2012-02-20 20:07:46]:
>
> > On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 19:14 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > Enabling SD_BALANCE_WAKE used to be decidedly too
> > > expensive to consider. Maybe that has changed, but I doubt
> > > it.
> >
> > Right, I through I remembered somet such, you could see it
> > on wakeup heavy things like pipe-bench and that java msg
> > passing thing, right?
>
> I did some experiments with volanomark and it does turn out to
> be sensitive to SD_BALANCE_WAKE, while the other wake-heavy
> benchmark that I am dealing with (Trade) benefits from it.
Does volanomark still do yield(), thereby invoking a random
shuffle of thread scheduling and pretty much voluntarily
ejecting itself from most scheduler performance considerations?
If it uses a real locking primitive such as futexes then its
performance matters more.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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