lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE
From
Date
On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 11:06 -0700, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 06/11/2015 10:35 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 13:05 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > If sd == NULL, we fall through and try to pull wakee despite nacked-by
> > tsk_cpus_allowed() or wake_affine().
> >
>
> So maybe add a check in the if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE) for something
> like this
>
> if (tmp >= 0) {
> new_cpu = tmp;
> goto unlock;
> } else if (!want_affine) {
> new_cpu = prev_cpu;
> }
>
> so we can make sure we're not being pushed onto a cpu that we aren't
> allowed on? Thanks,

The buglet is a messenger methinks. You saying the patch helped without
SD_BALANCE_WAKE being set is why I looked. The buglet would seem to say
that preferring cache is not harming your load after all. It now sounds
as though wake_wide() may be what you're squabbling with.

Things aren't adding up all that well.

-Mike



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-06-18 03:21    [W:0.111 / U:0.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site