lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE
    On 05/28/2015 07:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    >
    > So maybe you want something like the below; that cures the thing Morten
    > raised, and we continue looking for sd, even after we found affine_sd.
    >
    > It also avoids the pointless idle_cpu() check Mike raised by making
    > select_idle_sibling() return -1 if it doesn't find anything.
    >
    > Then it continues doing the full balance IFF sd was set, which is keyed
    > off of sd->flags.
    >
    > And note (as Mike already said), BALANCE_WAKE does _NOT_ look for idle
    > CPUs, it looks for the least loaded CPU. And its damn expensive.
    >

    Sorry I was just assuming based on the commit message when WAKE_IDLE was
    removed, this isn't my area.

    >
    > Rewriting this entire thing is somewhere on the todo list :/

    Thanks I'm building and deploying this so I can run our perf test, I'll
    have results in ~3 hours.

    Josef


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-05-28 17:21    [W:4.180 / U:0.028 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site