[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1399009289.5233.39.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 07:41:29 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@....com,
mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
george.mccollister@...il.com, ktkhai@...allels.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC/TEST] sched: make sync affine wakeups work
On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 07:32 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 00:42 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Currently sync wakeups from the wake_affine code cannot work as
> > designed, because the task doing the sync wakeup from the target
> > cpu will block its wakee from selecting that cpu.
> >
> > This is despite the fact that whether or not the wakeup is sync
> > determines whether or not we want to do an affine wakeup...
>
> If the sync hint really did mean we ARE going to schedule RSN, waking
> local would be a good thing. It is all too often a big fat lie.
BTW, we used to have avg_overlap and a sync less heuristic to improve
the accuracy of the sync wakeup hint, but I ripped it out because it was
dead wrong far too often. You can try reviving it, but preemption among
other things break it. You'll have better luck with a simple context
switch rate heuristic, but that's less than perfect too.
-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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists