[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <550FE41E.8030604@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:29:58 +0530
From: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
CC: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 10/11] sched: add SD_PREFER_SIBLING for SMT level
On 03/23/2015 02:41 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 09:38:11AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
>>> Prefer siblings logic dates back to https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/27/210
>>> and only used in update_sd_lb_stats() where we have
>>>
>>> if (child && child->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING)
>>> prefer_sibling = 1;
>>>
>>> However what confuses me is why should we even look at a child domain's
>>> flag to balance tasks across the current sched domain? Why cant we just
>>> set and use a sd flag at current level than to look at child domain
>>> flag?
>>
>> Peter,
>> have you got some insight about the reason ?
>
> Yeah, because it makes sense that way? ;-)
>
> The we want to move things to the child's sibling, not the parent's
> sibling. We further need to have a child for this to make sense.
>
>
+1. The above is precisely why we need this patch.
Regards
Preeti U Murthy
--
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