Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/3] sched: simplify the select_task_rq_fair()
From: Michael Wang
Date: Thu Feb 21 2013 - 00:21:55 EST
On 02/20/2013 10:05 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 14:32 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 11:49 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> The changes look clean and reasoable,
>> I don't necessarily agree, note that O(n^2) storage requirement that
>> Michael failed to highlight ;-)
> (yeah, I mentioned that needs to shrink.. a lot)
Exactly, and I'm going to apply the suggestion now :)
>>> any ideas exactly *why* it speeds up?
>> That is indeed the most interesting part.. There's two parts to
>> select_task_rq_fair(), the 'regular' affine wakeup path, and the
>> fork/exec find_idlest_goo() path. At the very least we need to quantify
>> which of these two parts contributes most to the speedup.
>> In the power balancing discussion we already noted that the
>> find_idlest_goo() is in need of attention.
> Yup, even little stuff like break off the search when load is zero..
Agree, searching in a bunch of idle cpus and their subsets doesn't make
> unless someone is planning on implementing anti-idle 'course ;-)
> 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/
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/