[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170821135645.y3ppzdyewwbecvvx@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 15:56:45 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>
Cc: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>, mingo@...nel.org,
joel.opensrc@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
juri.lelli@...il.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, kernel-team@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING
on find_later_rq()
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Also, I'm not sure what Peter meant with
>
> "But still this isn't quite right, because when we consider this for SMT
> (as was the intent here) we'll happily occupy a full sibling core over
> finding an empty one."
Consider a 4 core, SMT2 system:
LLC [0 - 7]
SMT [0,1] [2,3] [4,5] [6,7]
If we do a wake-up on CPU0, we'll find CPU1, mark that as fallback,
continue up the domain tree, exclude 0,1 from 0-7 and find CPU2.
A next wakeup on CPU0 does the same and will find CPU3, fully loading
that core, instead of considering CPU4 first.
Doing this 'right' is difficult and expensive :-/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists