On 02/28/2013 11:31 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> 2013-02-28 (목), 11:06 +0100, Mike Galbraith:
>> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 18:25 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>>
>>> Not sure if it should require bidirectional relationship. Looks like
>>> just for benchmarks. Isn't there a one-way relationship that could
Hi, Namhyung
Thanks for your reply.
On 02/28/2013 05:25 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
[snip]
>> Thus, if B is also the wakeup buddy of A, which means no other task has
>> destroyed their relationship, then A is likely to benefit from the cached
>> data of B, make them running closely is likely to gain
On 02/28/2013 05:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:49 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 02/28/2013 04:24 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 02/28/2013 04:04 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>>
> It would be nice if it
2013-02-28 (목), 11:06 +0100, Mike Galbraith:
> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 18:25 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> > Not sure if it should require bidirectional relationship. Looks like
> > just for benchmarks. Isn't there a one-way relationship that could get
> > a benefit from this? I don't know ;-)
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 18:25 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Not sure if it should require bidirectional relationship. Looks like
> just for benchmarks. Isn't there a one-way relationship that could get
> a benefit from this? I don't know ;-)
?? Meaningful relationships are bare minimum
Hi Michael,
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:38:03 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> wake_affine() stuff is trying to bind related tasks closely, but it doesn't
> work well according to the test on 'perf bench sched pipe' (thanks to Peter).
>
> Besides, pgbench show that blindly using wake_affine() will eat a
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:49 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 04:24 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> On 02/28/2013 04:04 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> >>> It would be nice if it _were_ a promise, but it is not, it's a hint.
>
On 02/28/2013 04:24 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> On 02/28/2013 04:04 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
>>> It would be nice if it _were_ a promise, but it is not, it's a hint.
>>
>> Bad to know :(
>>
>> Should we fix it or this is by designed?
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 04:04 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > It would be nice if it _were_ a promise, but it is not, it's a hint.
>
> Bad to know :(
>
> Should we fix it or this is by designed? The comments after WF_SYNC
> cheated me...
You can't
On 02/28/2013 04:04 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 15:40 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> Hi, Mike
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> On 02/28/2013 03:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 14:38 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>>
+ /*
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 15:42 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> I mean could we say that more ops/sec means more works has been done?
Sure. But it's fairly meaningless, it's all scheduler. Real tasks do
more than schedule.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 15:40 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> Hi, Mike
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> On 02/28/2013 03:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 14:38 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >
> >> + /*
> >> + * current is the
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 15:40 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
Hi, Mike
Thanks for your reply.
On 02/28/2013 03:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 14:38 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
+ /*
+ * current is the only task on rq
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 15:42 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
I mean could we say that more ops/sec means more works has been done?
Sure. But it's fairly meaningless, it's all scheduler. Real tasks do
more than schedule.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
On 02/28/2013 04:04 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 15:40 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
Hi, Mike
Thanks for your reply.
On 02/28/2013 03:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 14:38 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
+ /*
+
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 02/28/2013 04:04 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
It would be nice if it _were_ a promise, but it is not, it's a hint.
Bad to know :(
Should we fix it or this is by designed? The comments after WF_SYNC
cheated me...
You can't fix it,
On 02/28/2013 04:24 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 02/28/2013 04:04 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
It would be nice if it _were_ a promise, but it is not, it's a hint.
Bad to know :(
Should we fix it or this is by designed? The comments
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:49 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 02/28/2013 04:24 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 02/28/2013 04:04 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
It would be nice if it _were_ a promise, but it is not, it's a hint.
Bad to know
Hi Michael,
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:38:03 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
wake_affine() stuff is trying to bind related tasks closely, but it doesn't
work well according to the test on 'perf bench sched pipe' (thanks to Peter).
Besides, pgbench show that blindly using wake_affine() will eat a lot
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 18:25 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Not sure if it should require bidirectional relationship. Looks like
just for benchmarks. Isn't there a one-way relationship that could get
a benefit from this? I don't know ;-)
?? Meaningful relationships are bare minimum
2013-02-28 (목), 11:06 +0100, Mike Galbraith:
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 18:25 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Not sure if it should require bidirectional relationship. Looks like
just for benchmarks. Isn't there a one-way relationship that could get
a benefit from this? I don't know ;-)
??
On 02/28/2013 05:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:49 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 02/28/2013 04:24 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 16:14 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
On 02/28/2013 04:04 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
It would be nice if it _were_ a promise,
Hi, Namhyung
Thanks for your reply.
On 02/28/2013 05:25 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
[snip]
Thus, if B is also the wakeup buddy of A, which means no other task has
destroyed their relationship, then A is likely to benefit from the cached
data of B, make them running closely is likely to gain
On 02/28/2013 11:31 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
2013-02-28 (목), 11:06 +0100, Mike Galbraith:
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 18:25 +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
Not sure if it should require bidirectional relationship. Looks like
just for benchmarks. Isn't there a one-way relationship that could get
a
On 02/28/2013 03:40 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> Hi, Mike
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> On 02/28/2013 03:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 14:38 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>>
>>> + /*
>>> +* current is the only task on rq
Hi, Mike
Thanks for your reply.
On 02/28/2013 03:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 14:38 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>
>> +/*
>> + * current is the only task on rq and it is
>> + * going to
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 14:38 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> + /*
> + * current is the only task on rq and it is
> + * going to sleep, current cpu will be a nice
> + * candidate for p to
wake_affine() stuff is trying to bind related tasks closely, but it doesn't
work well according to the test on 'perf bench sched pipe' (thanks to Peter).
Besides, pgbench show that blindly using wake_affine() will eat a lot of
performance.
Thus, we need a new solution, it should detect the tasks
wake_affine() stuff is trying to bind related tasks closely, but it doesn't
work well according to the test on 'perf bench sched pipe' (thanks to Peter).
Besides, pgbench show that blindly using wake_affine() will eat a lot of
performance.
Thus, we need a new solution, it should detect the tasks
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 14:38 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
+ /*
+ * current is the only task on rq and it is
+ * going to sleep, current cpu will be a nice
+ * candidate for p to run
Hi, Mike
Thanks for your reply.
On 02/28/2013 03:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 14:38 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
+/*
+ * current is the only task on rq and it is
+ * going to sleep,
On 02/28/2013 03:40 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
Hi, Mike
Thanks for your reply.
On 02/28/2013 03:18 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 14:38 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
+ /*
+* current is the only task on rq and it is
+
32 matches
Mail list logo
