lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 05/22] sched: remove domain iterations in fork/exec/wake
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:46:31AM +0000, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 01/10/2013 02:21 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> >> new_cpu = find_idlest_cpu(group, p, cpu);
> >> > -
> >> > - /* Now try balancing at a lower domain level of new_cpu */
> >> > - cpu = new_cpu;
> >> > - weight = sd->span_weight;
> >> > - sd = NULL;
> >> > - for_each_domain(cpu, tmp) {
> >> > - if (weight <= tmp->span_weight)
> >> > - break;
> >> > - if (tmp->flags & sd_flag)
> >> > - sd = tmp;
> >> > - }
> >> > - /* while loop will break here if sd == NULL */
> > I agree that this should be a major optimization. I just can't figure
> > out why the existing recursive search for an idle cpu switches to the
> > new cpu near the end and then starts a search for an idle cpu in the new
> > cpu's domain. Is this to handle some exotic sched domain configurations?
> > If so, they probably wouldn't work with your optimizations.
>
> I did not find odd configuration that asking for old logical.
>
> According to Documentation/scheduler/sched-domains.txt, Maybe never.
> "A domain's span MUST be a superset of it child's span (this restriction
> could be relaxed if the need arises), and a base domain for CPU i MUST
> span at least i." etc. etc.

The reason for my suspicion is the SD_OVERLAP flag, which has something
to do overlapping sched domains. I haven't looked into what it does or
how it works. I'm just wondering if this optimization will affect the
use of that flag.

Morten

>
>
> --
> Thanks Alex
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-11 12:01    [W:0.166 / U:0.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site