Hi, Peter
Would you like to give some comments on this approach? or may be just
some hint on what's the concern? the damage on pgbench is still there...
Regards,
Michael Wang
On 05/28/2013 01:05 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by theory
On 06/03/2013 02:05 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 13:50 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 06/03/2013 01:22 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> [snip]
I agree that this idea, in other work, 'stop wake-affine when current is
busy with wakeup' may miss the chance to bring b
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 13:50 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 06/03/2013 01:22 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> I agree that this idea, in other work, 'stop wake-affine when current is
> >> busy with wakeup' may miss the chance to bring benefit, although I could
> >> not find such worklo
On 06/03/2013 01:22 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> I agree that this idea, in other work, 'stop wake-affine when current is
>> busy with wakeup' may miss the chance to bring benefit, although I could
>> not find such workload, but I can't do promise...
>
> Someday we'll find the perfect ba
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 12:52 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 06/03/2013 11:53 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 11:26 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> On 06/03/2013 11:09 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 10:28 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 05/28/2013 0
On 06/03/2013 11:53 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 11:26 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 06/03/2013 11:09 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 10:28 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 05/28/2013 01:05 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> wake-affine stuff is always try
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 11:26 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 06/03/2013 11:09 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 10:28 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> On 05/28/2013 01:05 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> >>> wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by
> >>> theor
On 06/03/2013 11:09 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 10:28 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 05/28/2013 01:05 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
>>> wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by theory,
>>> this will bring benefit if waker's cpu cached hot data for wakee
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 10:28 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 05/28/2013 01:05 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> > wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by theory,
> > this will bring benefit if waker's cpu cached hot data for wakee, or the
> > extreme ping-pong case.
> >
> > And
On 05/28/2013 01:05 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by theory,
> this will bring benefit if waker's cpu cached hot data for wakee, or the
> extreme ping-pong case.
>
> And testing show it could benefit hackbench 15% at most.
>
> However,
wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by theory,
this will bring benefit if waker's cpu cached hot data for wakee, or the
extreme ping-pong case.
And testing show it could benefit hackbench 15% at most.
However, the whole stuff is somewhat blindly and time-consuming, so
11 matches
Mail list logo
