[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1362649419.4652.12.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 10:43:39 +0100
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: wakeup buddy
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 09:36 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 15:06 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>
> > wake_affine() stuff is trying to bind related tasks closely, but it doesn't
> > work well according to the test on 'perf bench sched pipe' (thanks to Peter).
>
> so sched-pipe is a poor benchmark for this..
>
> Ideally we'd write a new benchmark that has some actual data footprint
> and we'd measure the cost of tasks being apart on the various cache
> metrics and see what affine wakeup does for it.
>
> Before doing something like what you're proposing, I'd have a hard look
> at WF_SYNC, it is possible we should disable/fix select_idle_sibling
> for sync wakeups.
If nobody beats me to it, I'm going to try tracking shortest round trip
to idle, and use a multiple of that to shut select_idle_sibling() down.
If avg_idle approaches round trip time, there's no win to be had, we're
just wasting cycles.
-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