[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160128140053.GR6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:00:53 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: luca abeni <luca.abeni@...tn.it>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/8] Improve the tracking of active utilisation
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 02:41:29PM +0100, luca abeni wrote:
> > Some day we should fix this :-)
> I am trying to have a better look at the code, and I think that
> implementing bandwidth inheritance (BWI) could be easy (implementing
> M-BWI, that can be analyzed on multi-processor systems, is more complex
> because it requires busy waiting or similar).
Ah indeed, I remember now. To which I said that if busy-waiting is
'correct' so then must not busy-waiting be, for that consumes less
cputime and would allow more actual work to be done.
Of course, I might have missed some subtle detail, but intuition
suggests the above.
> > Nope, but fixing this is likely to be non-trivial.
> Ok... So, if this is acceptable for this patchset I'll try to keep the
> current PI behaviour,
Yeah that's fine. That's decidedly outside the scope of these patches.
> and I'll try to have a look at a better PI
> protocol after the runtime reclaiming stuff is done (that is, I make it
> acceptable for mainline, or we decide that a different approach is
> needed).
That would be very nice indeed!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists