On 04/22/2013 06:35 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote: > >> OK,.. Ingo said that pipe-test was the original motivation for >> wake_affine() and since that's currently broken to pieces due to >> select_idle_sibling() is there still a benefit to having it at all? >> >> Can anybody find any significant regression when simply killing >> wake_affine()? > > I'd suggest doing a patch that does: > > s/SD_WAKE_AFFINE/0*SD_WAKE_AFFINE
But by doing this, we won't be able to find 'affine_sd' any more, that will also skip the select_idle_sibling() logical (in current code), isn't it? If we really want to kill the stuff (I prefer not...), I suggest we forbidden the wake-affine by throttle it with an incredible interval, that's also easily to be reverted :) Regards, Michael Wang > > in all the relevant toplogy.h files, but otherwise keep the logic in > place. That way it's easy to revert. > > Thanks, > > Ingo > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [email protected] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
