[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <512F0A5C.8030405@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 15:42:20 +0800
From: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: wakeup buddy
On 02/28/2013 03:40 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> Hi, Mike
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> On 02/28/2013 03:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 14:38 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * current is the only task on rq and it is
>>> + * going to sleep, current cpu will be a nice
>>> + * candidate for p to run on.
>>> + */
>>
>> The sync hint only means it might be going to sleep soon, and even then,
>> there can still be enough execution overlap to be a win to schedule
>> cross core. Sched pipe numbers will always be much prettier if you do
>> wakeup cpu affine, as it's ~100% scheduler and ~100% sync.
>
> Hmm.. so it's the comparison between 'cache benefit - execution overlap'
> and 'latency - execution overlap'?
>
> I could not estimate how many latency will be added to wait for current
> going to sleep (it should be faster than access cold data, isn't it?),
> but I really like the cache benefit, unless sync doesn't means current
> is going to sleep every time, but that's the promise of WF_SYNC, isn't it?
>
> You may lose
>> a lot on other stuff if you interpret the hint as gospel truth.
>
> Could you please give more details on this point?
>
>>
>> IMHO, sched pipe is a "how fat have I become" benchmark, not "how well
>> do I perform". The scheduler performs well when it makes more work
>> happen. Playing ping-pong with yourself is _exercise_, not a job :)
>
> That's right, may be I'm using the wrong description, it's the ops/sec
> which has been doubled, that means 'fat', correct?
I mean could we say that more ops/sec means more works has been done?
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> 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/
>>
>
--
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