[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1332750583.16159.79.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:29:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, 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
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 21:02 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Anyway, there are degradations as well, considering which I see
> several
> possibilities:
>
> 1. Do balance-on-wake for vcpu threads only.
Hell no ;-) we're not going to special case some threads over others.
> 2. Document tuning possibility to improve performance in virtualized
> environment:
> - Either via sched_domain flags (disable SD_WAKE_AFFINE
> at all levels and enable SD_BALANCE_WAKE at SMT/MC levels)
But domain flags are not exported -- except under SCHED_DEBUG and that
sysctl mess.. also SD_flags are not stable.
> - Or via a new sched_feat(BALANCE_WAKE) tunable
sched_feat() is not a stable ABI and shouldn't ever be used for anything
but debugging (hence it lives in debugfs and goes away if you disable
SCHED_DEBUG).
I would very much like more information on why things are a loss. Is it
really related to what cpu you pick, or is it the cost of doing the
balance thing?
--
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