lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()
On 21/08/17 15:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
>
> > Also, I'm not sure what Peter meant with
> >
> > "But still this isn't quite right, because when we consider this for SMT
> > (as was the intent here) we'll happily occupy a full sibling core over
> > finding an empty one."
>
> Consider a 4 core, SMT2 system:
>
> LLC [0 - 7]
>
> SMT [0,1] [2,3] [4,5] [6,7]
>
> If we do a wake-up on CPU0, we'll find CPU1, mark that as fallback,
> continue up the domain tree, exclude 0,1 from 0-7 and find CPU2.
>
> A next wakeup on CPU0 does the same and will find CPU3, fully loading
> that core, instead of considering CPU4 first.
>

Ah, right, I see. Thanks for explaining.

Byungchul, maybe you could add this explanation as a comment?

> Doing this 'right' is difficult and expensive :-/
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-21 16:11    [W:0.055 / U:0.664 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site