[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f1b421f956fa044b4efa7f5fef015725b27223cf.camel@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2021 06:34:26 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: wakeup_affine_weight() is b0rked - was Re: [PATCH 2/2]
sched/fair: Scale wakeup granularity relative to nr_running
On Sun, 2021-10-03 at 20:34 +1300, Barry Song wrote:
>
> I am wondering if this should be the responsibility of wake_wide()?
Those event threads we stacked so high (which are kde minions btw),
don't generally accrue _any_ wakee_flips, so when X wakes a slew of the
things, wake_wide()'s heuristic rejects the lot.
So yeah, the blame game for this issue is a target rich environment.
Shoot either of 'em (or both), and you'll hit the bad guy.
-Mike
Powered by blists - more mailing lists