From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>,
riel@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
morten.rasmussen@arm.com, kernel-team <Kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: beef up wake_wide()
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:49:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1436881757.7983.12.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150714111905.GJ3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 13:19 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> OK, how about something like the below; it tightens things up by
> applying two rules:
>
> - We really should not continue looking for a balancing domain once
> SD_LOAD_BALANCE is not set.
>
> - SD (balance) flags should really be set in a single contiguous range,
> always starting at the bottom.
>
> The latter means what if !want_affine and the (first) sd doesn't have
> BALANCE_WAKE set, we're done. Getting rid of (most of) that iteration
> junk you didn't like..
>
> Hmm?
Yeah, that's better. It's not big hairy deal either way, it just bugged
me to knowingly toss those cycles out the window ;-)
select_idle_sibling() looks kinda funny down there, but otoh when the
day comes (hah) that we can just balance, it's closer to the exit.
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-14 13:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-27 21:22 [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE Josef Bacik
2015-05-28 3:46 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-28 9:49 ` Morten Rasmussen
2015-05-28 10:57 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-28 11:48 ` Morten Rasmussen
2015-05-28 11:49 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-28 10:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-28 11:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-28 14:27 ` Josef Bacik
2015-05-29 21:03 ` Josef Bacik
2015-05-30 3:55 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-01 19:38 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-01 20:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-06-01 21:03 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-02 17:12 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-03 14:12 ` Rik van Riel
2015-06-03 14:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-06-03 14:49 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-03 15:30 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-03 15:57 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-03 16:53 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-03 17:16 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-03 17:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-03 20:34 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-04 4:52 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-01 22:15 ` Rik van Riel
2015-06-11 20:33 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-12 3:42 ` Rik van Riel
2015-06-12 5:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-17 18:06 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-18 0:55 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-18 3:46 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-18 4:12 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-02 17:44 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-03 6:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-03 9:29 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-04 15:57 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-05 7:17 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-06 5:13 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-06 14:34 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-06 18:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-06 19:41 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-07 4:01 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-07 9:43 ` [patch] " Mike Galbraith
2015-07-07 13:40 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-07 15:24 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-07 17:06 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-08 6:13 ` [patch] sched: beef up wake_wide() Mike Galbraith
2015-07-09 13:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-09 14:07 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-09 14:46 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-10 5:19 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-10 13:41 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-10 20:59 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-11 3:11 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-13 13:53 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-14 11:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-14 13:49 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2015-07-14 14:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-14 14:17 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-14 15:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-14 15:39 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-14 16:01 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-14 17:59 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-15 17:11 ` Josef Bacik
2015-08-03 17:07 ` [tip:sched/core] sched/fair: Beef " tip-bot for Mike Galbraith
2015-05-28 11:16 ` [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE Mike Galbraith
2015-05-28 11:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-28 12:15 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-28 12:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-28 12:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-28 15:22 ` David Ahern
2015-05-28 11:55 ` Srikar Dronamraju
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=1436881757.7983.12.camel@gmail.com \
--to=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=Kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=jbacik@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).