[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1399016273.5233.94.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 09:37:53 +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 02:30 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 05/02/2014 02:13 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 00:42 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> >> Whether or not this is the right thing to do remains to be seen,
> >> but it does allow us to verify whether or not the wake_affine
> >> strategy of always doing affine wakeups and only disabling them
> >> in a specific circumstance is sound, or needs rethinking...
> >
> > Yes, it needs rethinking.
> >
> > I know why you want to try this, yes, select_idle_sibling() is very much
> > a two faced little bitch.
>
> My biggest problem with select_idle_sibling and wake_affine in
> general is that it will override NUMA placement, even when
> processes only wake each other up infrequently...
Hm, seems the thing to do would be to tell select_task_rq_fair() to keep
it's mitts off of tasks that the numasched stuff has placed rather than
decapitating select_idle_sibling() or some other drastic measure.
-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