On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 02:56:07PM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Fri, 2021-02-26 at 22:10 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > + if (sched_feat(WA_WAKER) && tnr_busy < tllc_size)
> > + return this_cpu;
>
> I wonder if we need to use a slightly lower threshold on
> very large LLCs, both to account for the fact that the
> select_idle_cpu code may not find the single idle CPU
> among a dozen busy ones, or because on a system with
> hyperthreading we may often be better off picking another
> LLC for HT contention issues?
>
> Maybe we could use "tnr_busy * 4 <
> tllc_size * 3" or
> something like that?
How about:
tnr_busy < tllc_size / topology_max_smt_threads()
?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
