From: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
Brendan Jackman <brendan.jackman@arm.com>,
Chris Redpath <Chris.Redpath@arm.com>,
Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Subject: Re: wake_wide mechanism clarification
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 15:41:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJWu+ookYPvXrEF=bDW_aui30NV91hMBawy=+GZn_xEiriU0Ag@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJWu+ore7pfzMw4dz=y4YMi5YGs_b5DwjA6=GfXFsqqJN10gWQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>>> Again I didn't follow why the second condition couldn't just be:
>>>> waker->nr_wakee_switch > factor, or, (waker->nr_wakee_switch +
>>>> wakee->nr_wakee_switch) > factor, based on the above explanation from
>>>> Micheal Wang that I quoted.
>>>> and why he's instead doing the whole multiplication thing there that I
>>>> was talking about earlier: "factor * wakee->nr_wakee_switch".
>>>>
>>>> Rephrasing my question in another way, why are we talking the ratio of
>>>> master/slave instead of the sum when comparing if its > factor? I am
>>>> surely missing something here.
>>>
>>> Because the heuristic tries to not demolish 1:1 buddies. Big partner
>>> flip delta means the pair are unlikely to be a communicating pair,
>>> perhaps at high frequency where misses hurt like hell.
>>
>> But it does seem to me to demolish the N:N communicating pairs from a
>> latency/load balancing standpoint. For he case of N readers and N
>> writers, the ratio (master/slave) comes down to 1:1 and we wake
>> affine. Hopefully I didn't miss something too obvious about that.
>
> I think wake_affine() should correctly handle the case (of
> overloading) I bring up here where wake_wide() is too conservative and
> does affine a lot, (I don't have any data for this though, this just
> from code reading), so I take this comment back for this reason.
aargh, nope :( it still runs select_idle_sibling although on the
previous CPU even if want_affine is 0 (and doesn't do the wider
wakeup..), so the comment still applies.. its easy to get lost into
the code with so many if statements :-\ sorry about the noise :)
thanks,
-Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-29 22:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-30 0:19 wake_wide mechanism clarification Joel Fernandes
2017-06-30 0:49 ` Josef Bacik
2017-06-30 3:04 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-06-30 14:28 ` Josef Bacik
2017-06-30 17:02 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-06-30 17:55 ` Josef Bacik
2017-08-03 10:53 ` Brendan Jackman
2017-08-03 13:15 ` Josef Bacik
2017-08-03 15:05 ` Brendan Jackman
2017-08-09 21:22 ` Atish Patra
2017-08-10 9:48 ` Brendan Jackman
2017-08-10 17:41 ` Atish Patra
2017-07-29 8:01 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-29 8:13 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-08-02 8:26 ` Michael Wang
2017-08-03 23:48 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-29 15:07 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-07-29 20:19 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-29 22:28 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-29 22:41 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2017-07-31 12:21 ` Josef Bacik
2017-07-31 13:42 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-07-31 14:48 ` Josef Bacik
2017-07-31 17:23 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-07-31 16:21 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-31 16:42 ` Josef Bacik
2017-07-31 17:55 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-06-30 3:11 ` Mike Galbraith
2017-06-30 13:11 ` Matt Fleming
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='CAJWu+ookYPvXrEF=bDW_aui30NV91hMBawy=+GZn_xEiriU0Ag@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=Chris.Redpath@arm.com \
--cc=Juri.Lelli@arm.com \
--cc=brendan.jackman@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matt@codeblueprint.co.uk \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.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).