From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Received: from mail-io0-f200.google.com (mail-io0-f200.google.com [209.85.223.200])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0970B6B049F
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 15:59:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mail-io0-f200.google.com with SMTP id c74so93597764iod.4
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com. [134.134.136.100])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u18si4065878pfl.627.2017.08.18.12.58.58
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>
        (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 12:58:58 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/wait: Break up long wake list walk
Message-ID: <20170818195858.GP28715@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
References: <CA+55aFwzTMrZwh7TE_VeZt8gx5Syoop-kA=Xqs56=FkyakrM6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F0775378761B@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <CA+55aFy_RNx5TQ8esjPPOKuW-o+fXbZgWapau2MHyexcAZtqsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170818122339.24grcbzyhnzmr4qw@techsingularity.net>
 <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F077537879BB@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <20170818144622.oabozle26hasg5yo@techsingularity.net>
 <37D7C6CF3E00A74B8858931C1DB2F07753787AE4@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <CA+55aFxZjjqUM4kPvNEeZahPovBHFATiwADj-iPTDN0-jnU67Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170818185455.qol3st2nynfa47yc@techsingularity.net>
 <CA+55aFwX0yrUPULrDxTWVCg5c6DKh-yCG84NXVxaptXNQ4O_kA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwX0yrUPULrDxTWVCg5c6DKh-yCG84NXVxaptXNQ4O_kA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>, "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>

> which is hacky, but there's a rationale for it:
> 
>  (a) avoid the crazy long wait queues ;)
> 
>  (b) we know that migration is *supposed* to be CPU-bound (not IO
> bound), so yielding the CPU and retrying may just be the right thing
> to do.

So this would degenerate into a spin when the contention is with
other CPUs? 

But then if we guarantee that migration has flat latency curve
and no long tail it may be reasonable.

If the contention is with the local CPU it could cause some
unfairness (and in theory priority inheritance issues with local
CPU contenders?), but hopefully not too bad.

-Andi

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>