On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 09:44 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> So you're interested in numbers where we pass the wake_wide decision
> into select_idle_sibling(), and then use that instead of (or in addition
> to?) my should_scan_idle() function?
Yeah, I was thinking instead of, and hoping that would be enough.
> I agree we may need to tweak wake_wide, since most of our wakeups now
> are failed affine wakeups.
What exactly do you mean by failed affine wakeups? Failed because
wake_wide() said we don't want one, or because wake_affine() said we
can't have one? If the later, my thought bubble may have just burst,
but it still "feels" right.
-Mike
