[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1399013469.5233.85.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 08:51:09 +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 08:36 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Reason why is that case was on a box where FAIR_SLEEPERS is disabled by
> default, meaning there is no such thing as wakeup preemption. Guess
> what happens when you don't have shared LLC for a fast/light wakee to
> escape to when the waker is a pig. The worst thing possible in that
> case is to wake affine. Leave the poor thing wherever it was, else it
> will take a latency hit that need not have been.
Oh yeah, and you'll see similar issues playing with kvm. No escape
routes are available, as no llc domain exists. Globally do a sync
wakeup CPU affine, and for some loads that will induce massive wreckage
where as If select_isle_sibling() had been there to save the day, all
would have been peachy. Is it good, or is it evil... depends.
-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