[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1433191354.11346.22.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 22:42:34 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
Cc: riel@...hat.com, mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, morten.rasmussen@....com,
kernel-team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for
BALANCE_WAKE
On Mon, 2015-06-01 at 15:38 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Ok I got this patch to give me the same performance as all our other
> crap, just need to apply this incremental
>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index b71eb2b..e11cfec 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4761,13 +4761,10 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int
> prev_cpu, int sd_flag, int wake_f
>
> if (tmp->flags & sd_flag)
> sd = tmp;
> - else if (!want_affine || (want_affine && affine_sd))
> - break;
> }
That bit worries me a bit, because that causes us to have a weird
definition for what sd is.
Without WAKE_AFFINE, sd is the biggest domain with BALANCE_WAKE (or any
other sd_flag) set.
But with WAKE_AFFINE, its the first domain that satisfies the wake
affine constraint of covering both the previous and waking cpu. It
basically reduces sd to affine_sd.
--
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