[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <517B3C07.1020004@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:46:31 +0800
From: Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 04/22/2013 06:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> OK,.. Ingo said that pipe-test was the original motivation for
> wake_affine() and since that's currently broken to pieces due to
> select_idle_sibling() is there still a benefit to having it at all?
>
> Can anybody find any significant regression when simply killing
> wake_affine()?
Is it time for us to make the decision now?
Forgive me for urge the progress, but I really confused what is stopping
us from adopt the throttle approach...
Is there any other option more simple, safe and faster?
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