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 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).