Re: [RFC][PATCH] sched: Avoid select_idle_sibling() for wake_affine(.sync=true)

[Michael wang]

On 09/26/2013 03:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Ok, a double-edged sword I see :)
>>
>> May be we can wave it carefully here, give the discount to a bigger
>> scope not the sync cpu, for example:
>>
>> 	sg1				sg2
>> 	cpu0	cpu1	cpu2	cpu3	cpu4	cpu5	cpu6	cpu7
>> 	waker	idle	idle	idle	idle	idle	idle	idle
>>
>> If it's sync wakeup on cpu0 (only waker), and the sg is wide enough,
>> which means one cpu is not so influencial, then suppose cpu0 to be idle
>> could be more safe, also prefer sg1 than sg2 is more likely to be right.
>>
>> And we can still choose idle-cpu at final step, like cpu1 in this case,
>> to avoid the risk that waker don't get off as it said.
>>
>> The key point is to reduce the influence of sync, trust a little but not
>> totally ;-)
> 
> What we need is a dirt cheap way to fairly accurately predict overlap
> potential (todo: write omniscience().. patent, buy planet).

Agree, solutions for such cases are usually incredible ;-)

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/