Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 02 Jul 2013 13:50:31 +0800 | From | Michael Wang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] sched: smart wake-affine |
| |
On 07/02/2013 01:38 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 12:43 +0800, Michael Wang wrote: > >> +static int nasty_pull(struct task_struct *p) >> +{ >> + int factor = cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask); >> + >> + /* >> + * Yeah, it's the switching-frequency, could means many wakee or >> + * rapidly switch, use factor here will just help to automatically >> + * adjust the loose-degree, so more cpu will lead to more pull. >> + */ >> + if (p->nr_wakee_switch > factor) { >> + /* >> + * wakee is somewhat hot, it needs certain amount of cpu >> + * resource, so if waker is far more hot, prefer to leave >> + * it alone. >> + */ >> + if (current->nr_wakee_switch > (factor * p->nr_wakee_switch)) >> + return 1; >> + } >> + >> + return 0; >> +} > > Ew. I haven't gotten around to test-driving this patchlet, and I see > you haven't gotten around to finding a better name either. Any other > name will likely have a better chance of flying.
Trust me, I've tried to get a good name...and some cells in my brain do sacrificed for it, bravely ;-)
> > tasks_related() > ... > well, nearly any.. > tasks_think_wake_affine_sucks_rocks() > ..that won't fly either :)
Hmm...better than those in my mind (like dragon_wake_affine(), well...at least dragon could fly).
Anyway, if the idea itself become acceptable, then any name is ok for me, let's figure out a good one at that time :)
Regards, Michael Wang
> > -Mike >
| |