lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] sched: simplify the select_task_rq_fair()

* Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> wrote:

> On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 09:36 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 10:37 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> > > But that's really some benefit hardly to be estimate, especially when
> > > the workload is heavy, the cost of wake_affine() is very high to
> > > calculated se one by one, is that worth for some benefit we could not
> > > promise?
> >
> > Look at something like pipe-test.. wake_affine() used to
> > ensure both client/server ran on the same cpu, but then I
> > think we added select_idle_sibling() and wrecked it again :/
>
> Yeah, that's the absolute worst case for
> select_idle_sibling(), 100% synchronous, absolutely nothing to
> be gained by cross cpu scheduling. Fortunately, most tasks do
> more than that, but nonetheless, select_idle_sibling()
> definitely is a two faced little b*tch. I'd like to see the
> evil b*tch die, but something needs to replace it's pretty
> face. One thing that you can do is simply don't call it when
> the context switch rate is incredible.. its job is to recover
> overlap, if you're scheduling near your max, there's no win
> worth the cost.

Couldn't we make the cutoff dependent on sched_migration_cost?
If the wakeup comes in faster than that then don't spread.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-22 11:22    [W:0.429 / U:0.116 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site