[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190718100816.GA19218@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 15:38:16 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, prakash.sangappa@...cle.com,
dhaval.giani@...cle.com, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] sched: introduce tunables to control soft
affinity
* subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com> [2019-06-26 15:47:18]:
> For different workloads the optimal "softness" of soft affinity can be
> different. Introduce tunables sched_allowed and sched_preferred that can
> be tuned via /proc. This allows to chose at what utilization difference
> the scheduler will chose cpus_allowed over cpus_preferred in the first
> level of search. Depending on the extent of data sharing, cache coherency
> overhead of the system etc. the optimal point may vary.
>
> Signed-off-by: subhra mazumdar <subhra.mazumdar@...cle.com>
> ---
Correct me but this patchset only seems to be concentrated on the wakeup
path, I don't see any changes in the regular load balancer or the
numa-balancer. If system is loaded or tasks are CPU intensive, then wouldn't
these tasks be moved to cpus_allowed instead of cpus_preferred and hence
breaking this soft affinity.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju
Powered by blists - more mailing lists