[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1362677252.10972.26.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:27:32 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
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 Wed, 2013-03-06 at 15:06 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> @@ -3351,7 +3420,13 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int
> sd_flag, int wake_flags)
> }
>
> if (affine_sd) {
> - if (cpu != prev_cpu && wake_affine(affine_sd, p,
> sync))
> + /*
> + * If current and p are wakeup related, and balance is
> + * guaranteed, we will try to make them running
> closely
> + * to gain cache benefit.
> + */
> + if (cpu != prev_cpu && wakeup_related(p) &&
> + wake_affine(affine_sd, p,
> sync))
> prev_cpu = cpu;
OK, so there's two issues I have with all this are:
- it completely wrecks task placement for things like interrupts (sadly
I don't
have a good idea about a benchmark where this matters).
- yet another random number.. :/
Also, I'm starting to dislike the buddy name; its somewhat over-used.
--
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