From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] sched: Clean up SD_BALANCE_WAKE flags in sched domain build-up
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 03:35:24 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160601193524.GZ18670@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtCH9ycaTfK383b6DqE7JSOwz_e4Xr46S+XF5ZGVE4+_Jg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 11:24:45AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >
> > So with the patch, we will have a little bit semantic change, SD_BALANCE_WAKE
> > implies SD_WAKE_AFFINE if allowed, and will favor "fast path" if possible. I don't
> > think we should do anything otherwise.
>
> Why should we not do anything else ?
>
> The current default configuration is to only use the wake_affine path.
> With your changes, the default configuration will try to use wake
> affine and will fall back to long load balance sequence if wake affine
> doesn't find a sched_domain
>
> That's a major changes in the behavior
Well, I won't argue that this hasn't changed, but I'd argue that this change
isn't a bad change: (a) it restores the flags to their meanings and makes them
more "elegant", (b) we definitely need further work to improve
select_task_rq_fair(), there has already been a comment marked XXX, right? :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-02 3:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-31 1:11 [RFC PATCH 0/2] Remove and replace SD_WAKE_AFFINE with SD_BALANCE_WAKE Yuyang Du
2016-05-31 1:11 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] sched: Clean up SD_BALANCE_WAKE flags in sched domain build-up Yuyang Du
2016-05-31 9:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-31 1:31 ` Yuyang Du
2016-05-31 10:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-31 18:00 ` Yuyang Du
2016-06-01 5:07 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-01 0:01 ` Yuyang Du
2016-06-01 8:32 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-06-01 1:03 ` Yuyang Du
2016-06-01 9:24 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-06-01 19:35 ` Yuyang Du [this message]
2016-06-02 6:56 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-06-01 23:19 ` Yuyang Du
2016-06-01 9:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-01 20:03 ` Yuyang Du
2016-06-02 5:50 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-01 22:41 ` Yuyang Du
2016-06-02 6:44 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-05-31 1:11 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] sched: Remove SD_WAKE_AFFINE flag and replace it with SD_BALANCE_WAKE Yuyang Du
2016-05-31 9:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-31 1:34 ` Yuyang Du
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=20160601193524.GZ18670@intel.com \
--to=yuyang.du@intel.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.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.