[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5243E1B5.4080409@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:26:45 +0800
From: Michael wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: Avoid select_idle_sibling() for wake_affine(.sync=true)
On 09/26/2013 03:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Ok, a double-edged sword I see :)
>>
>> May be we can wave it carefully here, give the discount to a bigger
>> scope not the sync cpu, for example:
>>
>> sg1 sg2
>> cpu0 cpu1 cpu2 cpu3 cpu4 cpu5 cpu6 cpu7
>> waker idle idle idle idle idle idle idle
>>
>> If it's sync wakeup on cpu0 (only waker), and the sg is wide enough,
>> which means one cpu is not so influencial, then suppose cpu0 to be idle
>> could be more safe, also prefer sg1 than sg2 is more likely to be right.
>>
>> And we can still choose idle-cpu at final step, like cpu1 in this case,
>> to avoid the risk that waker don't get off as it said.
>>
>> The key point is to reduce the influence of sync, trust a little but not
>> totally ;-)
>
> What we need is a dirt cheap way to fairly accurately predict overlap
> potential (todo: write omniscience().. patent, buy planet).
Agree, solutions for such cases are usually incredible ;-)
Regards,
Michael Wang
>
> -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/
>
--
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