On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 11:37:31AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Some more brainstorming points...
>
> 1) We should probably (lazily/batched?) propagate load information
>up the sched_group tree. This will be useful for wake_affine,
>load_balancing, find_idlest_cpu, and select_idle_sibling
On Fri, 3 Oct 2014, Rik van Riel wrote:
> We have 3 different goals when selecting a runqueue for a task:
> 1) locality: get the task running close to where it has stuff cached
> 2) work preserving: get the task running ASAP, and preferably on a
>fully idle core
> 3) idle state latency: place
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/03/2014 10:46 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 10:28:42AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> The current code has the potential to be quite painful on systems
>> with a large number of cores per chip, so we will have to change
>> t
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 10:28:42AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> We have 3 different goals when selecting a runqueue for a task:
> 1) locality: get the task running close to where it has stuff cached
> 2) work preserving: get the task running ASAP, and preferably on a
>fully idle core
> 3) idle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/03/2014 03:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 08:23:04AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 13:15 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>>> Subject: sched,idle: teach select_idle_sibling about idle
>>> states
>>>
On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 09:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 08:23:04AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > A generic boo hiss aimed in the general direction of all of this let's
> > go look at every possibility on every wakeup stuff. Less is more.
>
> I hear you, can you see
On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 08:23:04AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 13:15 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > Subject: sched,idle: teach select_idle_sibling about idle states
> >
> > Change select_idle_sibling to take cpu idle exit latency into
> > account. First preference is t
On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 13:15 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> Subject: sched,idle: teach select_idle_sibling about idle states
>
> Change select_idle_sibling to take cpu idle exit latency into
> account. First preference is to select the cpu with the lowest
> exit latency from a completely idle sched
On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 13:15 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> This patch is ugly. I have not bothered cleaning it up, because it
> causes a regression with hackbench. Apparently for hackbench (and
> potentially other sync wakeups), locality is more important than
> idleness.
>
> We may need to add a t
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 19:15:00 -0400 (EDT)
Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > The main thing it does not cover is already running tasks that
> > get woken up again, since select_idle_sibling() covers everything
> > except for newly forked and newly executed tasks.
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
