Re: [PATCH] sched: wakeup buddy

[Michael Wang]

On 03/07/2013 05:43 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 09:36 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: 
>> On Wed, 2013-03-06 at 15:06 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>
>>> wake_affine() stuff is trying to bind related tasks closely, but it doesn't
>>> work well according to the test on 'perf bench sched pipe' (thanks to Peter).
>>
>> so sched-pipe is a poor benchmark for this.. 
>>
>> Ideally we'd write a new benchmark that has some actual data footprint
>> and we'd measure the cost of tasks being apart on the various cache
>> metrics and see what affine wakeup does for it.
>>
>> Before doing something like what you're proposing, I'd have a hard look
>> at WF_SYNC, it is possible we should disable/fix select_idle_sibling
>> for sync wakeups.
> 
> If nobody beats me to it, I'm going to try tracking shortest round trip
> to idle, and use a multiple of that to shut select_idle_sibling() down.
> If avg_idle approaches round trip time, there's no win to be had, we're
> just wasting cycles.

That's great if we have it, I'm a little doubt whether it is possible to
find a better way to replace the select_idle_sibling() (look at the way
it locates idle cpu...) in some cases, but I'm looking forward it ;-)

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> -Mike
> 
> --
> 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/