[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1412316263.5149.9.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 08:04:23 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] sched,idle: teach select_idle_sibling about idle
states
On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 13:15 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> This patch is ugly. I have not bothered cleaning it up, because it
> causes a regression with hackbench. Apparently for hackbench (and
> potentially other sync wakeups), locality is more important than
> idleness.
>
> We may need to add a third clause before the search, something
> along the lines of, to ensure target gets selected if neither
> target or i are idle and the wakeup is synchronous...
>
> if (sync_wakeup && cpu_of(target)->nr_running == 1)
> return target;
I recommend you forget that trusting sync hint ever sprang to mind, it
is often a big fat lie.
-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