[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <556725CA.6070103@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 10:27:22 -0400
From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: <riel@...hat.com>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
<morten.rasmussen@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for
BALANCE_WAKE
On 05/28/2015 07:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So maybe you want something like the below; that cures the thing Morten
> raised, and we continue looking for sd, even after we found affine_sd.
>
> It also avoids the pointless idle_cpu() check Mike raised by making
> select_idle_sibling() return -1 if it doesn't find anything.
>
> Then it continues doing the full balance IFF sd was set, which is keyed
> off of sd->flags.
>
> And note (as Mike already said), BALANCE_WAKE does _NOT_ look for idle
> CPUs, it looks for the least loaded CPU. And its damn expensive.
>
Sorry I was just assuming based on the commit message when WAKE_IDLE was
removed, this isn't my area.
>
> Rewriting this entire thing is somewhere on the todo list :/
Thanks I'm building and deploying this so I can run our perf test, I'll
have results in ~3 hours.
Josef
--
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