Messages in this thread | | | From | Nikunj A Dadhania <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] sched:Implement set_gang_buddy | Date | Mon, 26 Dec 2011 08:00:23 +0530 |
| |
On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0100, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 14:05 +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote: > > + /* > > + * Gang buddy, lets be unfair here > > + */ > > And why would you think that's an option? > Long answer, my previous experiments with set_next_buddy showed that the gang groups were getting lesser cpu bandwidth than the baseline. Then I thought of having a new helper(set_gang_buddy) that would give better chance to gang sched tasks. This will only be affecting the following cpus. In the cpu, which has gang_leader set, the code is not giving undue advantage to the gang task.
Regards, Nikunj
| |