[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87boijw2mp.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:51:58 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] sched: Honor sync wake up in select_idle_sibling
Hi, Mike
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:14:44 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 16:25 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
>>
>> When sync wakeup happens and there's the waker task running alone,
>> select the target cpu as if it's already idle.
>
> Ouch. That defeats the purpose of select_idle_sibling(). Just because
> we're doing a sync wakeup does not mean there's no convertible overlap,
> nor that the waker is really really going to take a nap immediately. A
> lot of the places that benefit up to and including hugely from looking
> for an idle shared cache to wake to do sync wakeups.
Thanks for the explanation! I misunderstood the function ;)
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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