From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752877AbbGNQC3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:02:29 -0400 Received: from mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.145.42]:35241 "EHLO mx0a-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751298AbbGNQC2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:02:28 -0400 Message-ID: <55A5326D.50405@fb.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:01:49 -0400 From: Josef Bacik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Galbraith , Peter Zijlstra CC: , , , , kernel-team Subject: Re: [patch] sched: beef up wake_wide() References: <559C0700.6090009@fb.com> <1436336026.3767.53.camel@gmail.com> <20150709132654.GE3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1436505566.5715.50.camel@gmail.com> <55A03232.2090500@fb.com> <1436584311.3429.7.camel@gmail.com> <20150714111905.GJ3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1436881757.7983.12.camel@gmail.com> <20150714140710.GL19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1436883466.7983.17.camel@gmail.com> <20150714150455.GM19282@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1436888390.7983.49.camel@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1436888390.7983.49.camel@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [192.168.52.123] X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe X-FB-Internal: Safe X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.14.151,1.0.33,0.0.0000 definitions=2015-07-14_07:2015-07-14,2015-07-14,1970-01-01 signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/14/2015 11:39 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 17:04 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 04:17:46PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: >>> There's a buglet, >> >>> We'll not look for a idle cpu when wake_wide() naks want_affine. >> >> *sigh* indeed.. fixing that'll bring us very close to what we started >> out wiht.. >> >> The one XXX there raises the question on whether we should always so >> select_idle_sibling() if we do not have a suitable balance flag, or only >> on wakeups. > > That's what I've been sitting here waffling over, finally convinced > myself that should the user turn FORX/EXEC off, he shouldn't find that a > substitute quietly slipped in.. though otoh.. crap, guess I'm not done > waffling after all. Yeah, this will work just fine ;-) > > (typos fixed) > We happy with this or should I wait for more patches to fly by before I test something ;)? Josef