[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1361369119.5919.86.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:05:19 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, alex.shi@...el.com,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] sched: simplify the select_task_rq_fair()
On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 14:32 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 11:49 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > The changes look clean and reasoable,
>
> I don't necessarily agree, note that O(n^2) storage requirement that
> Michael failed to highlight ;-)
(yeah, I mentioned that needs to shrink.. a lot)
> > any ideas exactly *why* it speeds up?
>
> That is indeed the most interesting part.. There's two parts to
> select_task_rq_fair(), the 'regular' affine wakeup path, and the
> fork/exec find_idlest_goo() path. At the very least we need to quantify
> which of these two parts contributes most to the speedup.
>
> In the power balancing discussion we already noted that the
> find_idlest_goo() is in need of attention.
Yup, even little stuff like break off the search when load is zero..
unless someone is planning on implementing anti-idle 'course ;-)
-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