On 07/02/2013 01:38 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 12:43 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>
>> +static int nasty_pull(struct task_struct *p)
>> +{
>> + int factor = cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Yeah, it's the switching-frequency, could means many wakee or
>> + * rapidly switch, use factor here will just help to automatically
>> + * adjust the loose-degree, so more cpu will lead to more pull.
>> + */
>> + if (p->nr_wakee_switch > factor) {
>> + /*
>> + * wakee is somewhat hot, it needs certain amount of cpu
>> + * resource, so if waker is far more hot, prefer to leave
>> + * it alone.
>> + */
>> + if (current->nr_wakee_switch > (factor * p->nr_wakee_switch))
>> + return 1;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>
> Ew. I haven't gotten around to test-driving this patchlet, and I see
> you haven't gotten around to finding a better name either. Any other
> name will likely have a better chance of flying.
Trust me, I've tried to get a good name...and some cells in my brain do
sacrificed for it, bravely ;-)
>
> tasks_related()
> ...
> well, nearly any..
> tasks_think_wake_affine_sucks_rocks()
> ..that won't fly either :)
Hmm...better than those in my mind (like dragon_wake_affine(), well...at
least dragon could fly).
Anyway, if the idea itself become acceptable, then any name is ok for
me, let's figure out a good one at that time :)
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/
