[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1364890206.16858.6.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:10:06 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] sched: factor out code to should_we_balance()
On Thu, 2013-03-28 at 16:58 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Now checking that this cpu is appropriate to balance is embedded into
> update_sg_lb_stats() and this checking has no direct relationship to
> this
> function.
>
> There is not enough reason to place this checking at
> update_sg_lb_stats(),
> except saving one iteration for sched_group_cpus.
Its only one iteration if there's only 2 groups, but there can be more
than 2, take any desktop Intel i7, it will have 4-8 cores, each with
HT; thus the CPU domain will have 4-8 groups.
And note that local_group is always the first group of a domain, so
we'd stop the balance at the first group and avoid touching the other
3-7, avoiding touching cachelines on 6-14 cpus.
So this short-cut does make sense.. its not pretty, granted, but
killing it doesn't seem right.
--
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