[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51677CB0.606@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:17:04 +0800
From: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
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: wake-affine throttle
On 04/10/2013 04:51 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 11:30 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> | 15 GB | 32 | 35918 | | 37632 | +4.77% | 47923 | +33.42% |
>> 52241 | +45.45%
>
> So I don't get this... is wake_affine() once every milisecond _that_
> expensive?
>
> Seeing we get a 45%!! improvement out of once every 100ms that would
> mean we're like spending 1/3rd of our time in wake_affine()? that's
> preposterous. So what's happening?
Hi, Peter
I think Mike has very well explained the reason why throttle bring us
benefit and why the benefit looks so significant when interval get
higher, could you please take a look at his mail and see whether it
addressed this concern?
And thanks Mike again for the excellent analysis :)
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
>
>
> --
> 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