Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE

From	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE
Date	2015-06-18 03:00 +0200
Message-ID	<pCwlt-1az-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<puR3I-7wi-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <pv3ey-qO-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <pv3Rf-1sc-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <pApRa-4oZ-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <pCpWG-vm-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 11:06 -0700, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 06/11/2015 10:35 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 13:05 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > If sd == NULL, we fall through and try to pull wakee despite nacked-by
> > tsk_cpus_allowed() or wake_affine().
> >
> 
> So maybe add a check in the if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE) for something 
> like this
> 
> if (tmp >= 0) {
> 	new_cpu = tmp;
> 	goto unlock;
> } else if (!want_affine) {
> 	new_cpu = prev_cpu;
> }
> 
> so we can make sure we're not being pushed onto a cpu that we aren't 
> allowed on?  Thanks,

The buglet is a messenger methinks.  You saying the patch helped without
SD_BALANCE_WAKE being set is why I looked.  The buglet would seem to say
that preferring cache is not harming your load after all.  It now sounds
as though wake_wide() may be what you're squabbling with.

Things aren't adding up all that well.

	-Mike

--
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/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for  BALANCE_WAKE Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com> - 2015-06-18 03:00 +0200

csiph-web