[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxUMmHAQ1HZnFv20cM2Gh-VqH1oe833+ug0OORjqkqgqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:10:04 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> which is hacky, but there's a rationale for it:
>>
>> (a) avoid the crazy long wait queues ;)
>>
>> (b) we know that migration is *supposed* to be CPU-bound (not IO
>> bound), so yielding the CPU and retrying may just be the right thing
>> to do.
>
> So this would degenerate into a spin when the contention is with
> other CPUs?
>
> But then if we guarantee that migration has flat latency curve
> and no long tail it may be reasonable.
Honestly, right now I'd say it's more of a "poath meant purely for
testing with some weak-ass excuse for why it might not be broken".
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists