From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:51:06 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 08/12] sched: move cfs task on a CPU with higher capacity In-Reply-To: References: <1404144343-18720-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1404144343-18720-9-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20140710111833.GY3935@laptop> <20140711145138.GC3935@laptop> Message-ID: <20140714135106.GZ19379@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 05:17:44PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > In any case, its feels rather arbitrary to me. What about machines where > > there's no cache sharing at all (the traditional SMP systems). This > > thing you're trying to do still seems to make sense there. > > ok, I thought that traditional SMP systems have this flag set at core > level. Yeah, with 1 core, so its effectively disabled. > I mean ARM platforms have the flag for CPUs in the same cluster > (which include current ARM SMP system) and the corei7 of my laptop has > the flag at the cores level. So I can see 'small' parts reducing shared caches in order to improve idle performance. The point being that LLC seems a somewhat arbitrary measure for this. Can we try and see what happens if you remove the limit. Its always best to try the simpler things first and only make it more complex if we have to. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: not available URL: