Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched: Enable wake balancing for the SMT/HT domain

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Sat, 2009-10-24 at 12:58 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Subject: sched: Enable wake balancing for the SMT/HT domain
> From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Logical CPUs that are part of a hyperthreading/SMT set are equivalent
> in terms of where to execute a task; after all they share pretty much
> all resources including the L1 cache.
> 
> This means that if task A wakes up task B, we should really consider
> all logical CPUs in the SMT/HT set to run task B, not just the CPU that
> task A is running on; in case task A keeps running, task B now gets to 
> execute with no latency. In the case where task A then immediately goes
> to wait for a response from task B, nothing is lost due to the aforementioned
> equivalency.
> 
> This patch turns on the "balance on wakup" and turns of "affine wakeups"
> for the SMT/HT scheduler domain to get this lower latency behavior.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/topology.h b/include/linux/topology.h
> index fc0bf3e..3665dc2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/topology.h
> +++ b/include/linux/topology.h
> @@ -95,8 +95,8 @@ int arch_update_cpu_topology(void);
>  				| 1*SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE			\
>  				| 1*SD_BALANCE_EXEC			\
>  				| 1*SD_BALANCE_FORK			\
> -				| 0*SD_BALANCE_WAKE			\
> -				| 1*SD_WAKE_AFFINE			\
> +				| 1*SD_BALANCE_WAKE			\
> +				| 0*SD_WAKE_AFFINE			\
>  				| 1*SD_SHARE_CPUPOWER			\
>  				| 0*SD_POWERSAVINGS_BALANCE		\
>  				| 0*SD_SHARE_PKG_RESOURCES		\
> 

So you're poking at SD_SIBLING_INIT, right?

That seems to make sense. Now doing the same for a cache level domain
(MC is almost that) might also make sense.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/