On 02/22/2013 04:17 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 14:42 +0800, Michael Wang wrote: > >> So this is trying to take care the condition when curr_cpu(local) and >> prev_cpu(remote) are on different nodes, which in the old world, >> wake_affine() won't be invoked, correct? > > It'll be called any time this_cpu and prev_cpu aren't one and the same. > It'd be pretty silly to asking whether to pull_here or leave_there when > here and there are identical.
Agree :) > >> Hmm...I think this maybe a good additional checking before enter balance >> path, but I could not estimate the cost to record the relationship at >> this moment of time... > > It'd be pretty cheap, but I'd hate adding any cycles to the fast path > unless those cycles have one hell of a good payoff, so the caching would > have to show most excellent cold hard numbers (talk crazy ideas walk;). It sounds like a good idea, I'm not sure whether it's cheap and how many benefit we could gain, but it worth some research. I will thinking more about it after finished the sbm work. Regards, Michael Wang > > -Mike > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/