lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: wakeup buddy
On 03/08/2013 01:27 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 15:06 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> @@ -3351,7 +3420,13 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int
>> sd_flag, int wake_flags)
>> }
>>
>> if (affine_sd) {
>> - if (cpu != prev_cpu && wake_affine(affine_sd, p,
>> sync))
>> + /*
>> + * If current and p are wakeup related, and balance is
>> + * guaranteed, we will try to make them running
>> closely
>> + * to gain cache benefit.
>> + */
>> + if (cpu != prev_cpu && wakeup_related(p) &&
>> + wake_affine(affine_sd, p,
>> sync))
>> prev_cpu = cpu;
>
>
> OK, so there's two issues I have with all this are:
>
> - it completely wrecks task placement for things like interrupts (sadly
> I don't
> have a good idea about a benchmark where this matters).

I don't get this point...could you please give more details?

> - yet another random number.. :/

Correct...well, but that also means flexibility, I suppose different
system and workload will need some tuning on this knob to gain more
benefit, by default, they will gain some benefit, small or big.

>
> Also, I'm starting to dislike the buddy name; its somewhat over-used.
>

I have to agree :), any suggestions?

Regards,
Michael Wang



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-08 04:21    [W:0.122 / U:0.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site