lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE
On 05/28/2015 07:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> So maybe you want something like the below; that cures the thing Morten
> raised, and we continue looking for sd, even after we found affine_sd.
>
> It also avoids the pointless idle_cpu() check Mike raised by making
> select_idle_sibling() return -1 if it doesn't find anything.
>
> Then it continues doing the full balance IFF sd was set, which is keyed
> off of sd->flags.
>
> And note (as Mike already said), BALANCE_WAKE does _NOT_ look for idle
> CPUs, it looks for the least loaded CPU. And its damn expensive.
>

Sorry I was just assuming based on the commit message when WAKE_IDLE was
removed, this isn't my area.

>
> Rewriting this entire thing is somewhere on the todo list :/

Thanks I'm building and deploying this so I can run our perf test, I'll
have results in ~3 hours.

Josef


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-28 17:21    [W:0.575 / U:1.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site