[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1361439789.5861.70.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:43:09 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
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 Thu, 2013-02-21 at 17:08 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> But is this patch set really cause regression on your Q6600? It may
> sacrificed some thing, but I still think it will benefit far more,
> especially on huge systems.
We spread on FORK/EXEC, and will no longer will pull communicating tasks
back to a shared cache with the new logic preferring to leave wakee
remote, so while no, I haven't tested (will try to find round tuit) it
seems it _must_ hurt. Dragging data from one llc to the other on Q6600
hurts a LOT. Every time a client and server are cross llc, it's a huge
hit. The previous logic pulled communicating tasks together right when
it matters the most, intermittent load... or interactive use.
-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