[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51272DD8.2080209@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:35:36 +0800
From: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
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 02/22/2013 04:17 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 14:42 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>
>> So this is trying to take care the condition when curr_cpu(local) and
>> prev_cpu(remote) are on different nodes, which in the old world,
>> wake_affine() won't be invoked, correct?
>
> It'll be called any time this_cpu and prev_cpu aren't one and the same.
> It'd be pretty silly to asking whether to pull_here or leave_there when
> here and there are identical.
Agree :)
>
>> Hmm...I think this maybe a good additional checking before enter balance
>> path, but I could not estimate the cost to record the relationship at
>> this moment of time...
>
> It'd be pretty cheap, but I'd hate adding any cycles to the fast path
> unless those cycles have one hell of a good payoff, so the caching would
> have to show most excellent cold hard numbers (talk crazy ideas walk;).
It sounds like a good idea, I'm not sure whether it's cheap and how many
benefit we could gain, but it worth some research.
I will thinking more about it after finished the sbm work.
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> -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