On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 13:19 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> OK, how about something like the below; it tightens things up by
> applying two rules:
>
> - We really should not continue looking for a balancing domain once
> SD_LOAD_BALANCE is not set.
>
> - SD (balance) flags should really be set in a single contiguous range,
> always starting at the bottom.
>
> The latter means what if !want_affine and the (first) sd doesn't have
> BALANCE_WAKE set, we're done. Getting rid of (most of) that iteration
> junk you didn't like..
>
> Hmm?
Yeah, that's better. It's not big hairy deal either way, it just bugged
me to knowingly toss those cycles out the window ;-)
select_idle_sibling() looks kinda funny down there, but otoh when the
day comes (hah) that we can just balance, it's closer to the exit.
-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/
