Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 May 2015 10:27:22 -0400 | From | Josef Bacik <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |