On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 16:07 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 15:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:13:46AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Detect 1:N waker/wakee relationship via a switching-frequency
> > > heuristic.
> > > + * A waker of many should wake a different task than the one last
> > > awakened
> > > + * at a frequency roughly N times higher than one of its wakees. In
> > > order
> > > + * to determine whether we should let the load spread vs consolodating to
> > > + * shared cache, we look for a minimum 'flip' frequency of llc_size in
> > > one
> > > + * partner, and a factor of lls_size higher frequency in the other. With
> > > + * both conditions met, we can be relatively sure that we are seeing a
> > > 1:N
> > > + * relationship, and that load size exceeds socket size.
> > > + */
> > > static int wake_wide(struct task_struct *p)
> > > {
> > > + unsigned int waker_flips = current->wakee_flips;
> > > + unsigned int wakee_flips = p->wakee_flips;
> > > int factor = this_cpu_read(sd_llc_size);
> > >
> > > + if (waker_flips < wakee_flips)
> > > + swap(waker_flips, wakee_flips);
> >
> > This makes the wakee/waker names useless, the end result is more like
> > wakee_flips := client_flips, waker_flips := server_flips.
>
> True, perhaps a rename is in order.
I should perhaps add that waker/wakee_flips does make sense to me in the
sense that the task who's flips end up in the waker_flips bucket is our
waker of many vs being one its many wakees.
-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/
