From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@arm.com>,
Chris Redpath <Chris.Redpath@arm.com>
Subject: Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 05:11:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1498792305.28164.68.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170630004912.GA2457@destiny>
On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 20:49 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 05:19:14PM -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> > Why are wanting the master's flip frequency to be higher than the
> > slaves by the factor?
>
> (Responding from my personal email as my work email is outlook shit and
> impossible to use)
>
> Because we are trying to detect the case that the master is waking many
> different processes, and the 'slave' processes are only waking up the
> master/some other specific processes to determine if we don't care about cache
> locality.
Yes, the heuristic (large delta implies waker/wakee are NOT 1:1, ie
filter out high frequency communication where eating misses doesn't
merely sting, it hurts like hell) just became bidirectional.
> Actually I think both are wrong, but I need Mike to weigh in.
My weigh in is this: if you have ideas to improve or replace that
heuristic, by all means go for it, just make damn sure it's dirt cheap.
Heuristics all suck one way or another, problem is that nasty old
"perfect is the enemy of good" adage. Make it perfect, it'll hurt.
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-30 3:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-30 0:19 wake_wide mechanism clarification Joel Fernandes
2017-06-30 0:49 ` Josef Bacik
2017-06-30 3:04 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-06-30 14:28 ` Josef Bacik
2017-06-30 17:02 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-06-30 17:55 ` Josef Bacik
2017-08-03 10:53 ` Brendan Jackman
2017-08-03 13:15 ` Josef Bacik
2017-08-03 15:05 ` Brendan Jackman
2017-08-09 21:22 ` Atish Patra
2017-08-10 9:48 ` Brendan Jackman
2017-08-10 17:41 ` Atish Patra
2017-07-29 8:01 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-29 8:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-08-02 8:26 ` Michael Wang
2017-08-03 23:48 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-29 15:07 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-07-29 20:19 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-29 22:28 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-29 22:41 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-31 12:21 ` Josef Bacik
2017-07-31 13:42 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-07-31 14:48 ` Josef Bacik
2017-07-31 17:23 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-07-31 16:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-31 16:42 ` Josef Bacik
2017-07-31 17:55 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-06-30 3:11 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2017-06-30 13:11 ` Matt Fleming
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1498792305.28164.68.camel@gmail.com \
--to=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=Chris.Redpath@arm.com \
--cc=Juri.Lelli@arm.com \
--cc=brendan.jackman@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.