On Sat, 2016-04-09 at 15:05 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> This does preserve the existing logic to prefer idle cores over idle
> CPU threads, and includes some tests to try and avoid the idle scan when we're
> actually better off sharing a non-idle CPU with someone else.
My box says the "oh nevermind" checks aren't selective enough, tbench
dropped 4% at clients=cores, and 2% at clients=threads.
> Benchmarks in production show overall capacity going up between 2-5%
> depending on the metric.
Latency rules all loads certainly exist, and clearly want some love,
but the bigger the socket, and the more threads/core, the more that
traverse is gonna hurt the others, so seems either we need a better
filter, or a (yeah yeah, yet another damn) tweakable.
Oh, and bounce_to_target() seems an odd way to say full_traverse.
-Mike
