From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755031Ab3D0Cqo (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:46:44 -0400 Received: from e23smtp03.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.145]:43840 "EHLO e23smtp03.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750839Ab3D0Cqn (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:46:43 -0400 Message-ID: <517B3C07.1020004@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:46:31 +0800 From: Michael Wang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Zijlstra CC: LKML , Ingo Molnar , Mike Galbraith , Alex Shi , Namhyung Kim , Paul Turner , Andrew Morton , "Nikunj A. Dadhania" , Ram Pai Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: wake-affine throttle References: <5164DCE7.8080906@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1366626208.2721.12.camel@laptop> In-Reply-To: <1366626208.2721.12.camel@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13042702-6102-0000-0000-000003648DE1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/22/2013 06:23 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > OK,.. Ingo said that pipe-test was the original motivation for > wake_affine() and since that's currently broken to pieces due to > select_idle_sibling() is there still a benefit to having it at all? > > Can anybody find any significant regression when simply killing > wake_affine()? Is it time for us to make the decision now? Forgive me for urge the progress, but I really confused what is stopping us from adopt the throttle approach... Is there any other option more simple, safe and faster? Regards, Michael Wang > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >