Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Mar 2012 22:39:51 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 11/39] autonuma: CPU follow memory algorithm |
| |
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 12:58:05PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mar 26, 2012 12:45 PM, "Andrea Arcangeli" <aarcange@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > As I wrote in the comment before the function, math speaking, this > > looks like O(N) but it is O(1), not O(N) nor O(N^2). This is because N > > = NR_CPUS = 1. > > That's just stupid sophistry.
I agree, this is why I warned everyone in the comment before the function with the adjective "misleading":
* O(1) misleading math * aside, the number of cachelines touched with thousands of CPU might * make it measurable.
> No, you can't just say that it's limited to some large constant, and thus > the same as O(1).
I pointed out it is O(1) just because if we use the O notation we may as well do the math right about it.
I may not have been clear but I never meant that because it is O(1) (NR_CPUS constant) it means it's already ok as it is now.
> > That's the worst kind of lie: something that's technically true if you look > at it a certain stupid way, but isn't actually true in practice. > > It's clearly O(n) in number of CPUs, and people told you it can't go into > the scheduler. Stop arguing idiotic things. Just say you'll fix it, instead > of looking like a tool.
About fixing it, this can be called at a regular interval like load_balance() (which also has an higher cost than the per-cpu schedule fast path, in having to walk over the other CPU runqueues) or to be more integrated within CFS so it doesn't need to be called at all.
I didn't think it was urgent to fix (also because it has a debug benefit to keep it like this in the short term), but I definitely intended to fix it.
I also would welcome people who knows the scheduler so much better than me to rewrite or fix it as they like it.
To be crystal clear: I totally agree to fix this, in the comment before the code I wrote:
* it's good in the * short term for stressing the algorithm.
I probably wasn't clear enough, but I already implicitly meant it shall be optimized further later.
If there's a slight disagreement is only on the "urgency" to fix it but I will certainly change my priorities on this after reading your comments!
Thanks for looking into this. Andrea
| |