Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Thu, 18 Jun 2015 02:55:39 +0200 |
| |
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
| |