lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/2] sched: Clean up SD_BALANCE_WAKE flags in sched domain build-up
    On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 10:32:53AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
    > > Yup. Up to this point, we don't have any disagreement. And I don't think we
    > > have any disagreement conceptually. What the next patch really does is:
    > >
    > > (1) we don't remove SD_BALANCE_WAKE as an important sched_domain flag, on
    > > the contrary, we strengthen it.
    > >
    > > (2) the semantic of SD_BALANCE_WAKE is currently represented by SD_WAKE_AFFINE,
    > > we actually remove this representation.
    > >
    > > (3) regarding the semantic of SD_WAKE_AFFINE, it is really not about selecting
    > > waker CPU or about the fast path. Conceptually, it is just saying the waker
    > > CPU is a valid and important candidate if SD_BALANCE_WAKE, which is just so
    > > obvious, so I don't think it deserves to be a separate sched_domain flag.
    > >
    > > (4) the outcome is, if SD_BALANCE_WAKE, we definitely will/should try waker CPU,
    > > and if !SD_BALANCE_WAKE, we don't try waker CPU. So nothing functional is
    > > changed.
    >
    >
    > AFAIU, there is 4 possible cases during wake up:
    > - we don't want any balance at wake so we don't have SD_BALANCE_WAKE
    > nor SD_WAKE_AFFINE in sched_domain->flags
    > - we only want wake affine balance check so we only have
    > SD_WAKE_AFFINE in sched_domain->flags
    > - we want wake_affine and full load balance at wake so we have both
    > SD_BALANCE_WAKE and SD_WAKE_AFFINE in sched_domain->flags
    > - we want full load balance but want to skip wake affine fast path so
    > we only have SD_BALANCE_WAKE in sched_domain->flags
    >
    > I'm not sure that we can still do only wake_affine or only full
    > load_balance with your changes whereas these sequences are valid ones

    So with the patch, we will have a little bit semantic change, SD_BALANCE_WAKE
    implies SD_WAKE_AFFINE if allowed, and will favor "fast path" if possible. I don't
    think we should do anything otherwise.

    So I think this is a combined case better than either of the "only wake_affine"
    or "only full" cases. Make sense?

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2016-06-01 11:21    [W:2.274 / U:0.220 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site