[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140710110644.GX3935@laptop>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 13:06:44 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux@....linux.org.uk, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Morten.Rasmussen@....com, efault@....de,
nicolas.pitre@...aro.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/12] sched: test the cpu's capacity in wake affine
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:05:38PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Currently the task always wakes affine on this_cpu if the latter is idle.
> Before waking up the task on this_cpu, we check that this_cpu capacity is not
> significantly reduced because of RT tasks or irq activity.
>
> Use case where the number of irq and/or the time spent under irq is important
> will take benefit of this because the task that is woken up by irq or softirq
> will not use the same CPU than irq (and softirq) but a idle one which share
> its cache.
The above, doesn't seem to explain:
> + } else if (!(sd->flags & SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES)) {
> + this_eff_load = 0;
> + }
> +
> + balanced = this_eff_load <= prev_eff_load;
this. Why would you unconditionally allow wake_affine across cache
domains?
--
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