lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: wake-affine throttle
On 04/22/2013 06:35 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
>> OK,.. Ingo said that pipe-test was the original motivation for
>> wake_affine() and since that's currently broken to pieces due to
>> select_idle_sibling() is there still a benefit to having it at all?
>>
>> Can anybody find any significant regression when simply killing
>> wake_affine()?
>
> I'd suggest doing a patch that does:
>
> s/SD_WAKE_AFFINE/0*SD_WAKE_AFFINE

But by doing this, we won't be able to find 'affine_sd' any more, that
will also skip the select_idle_sibling() logical (in current code),
isn't it?

If we really want to kill the stuff (I prefer not...), I suggest we
forbidden the wake-affine by throttle it with an incredible interval,
that's also easily to be reverted :)

Regards,
Michael Wang

>
> in all the relevant toplogy.h files, but otherwise keep the logic in
> place. That way it's easy to revert.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-23 07:01    [W:1.270 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site