Hi Mike,
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 10:30 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-09-17 at 14:41 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 23:42 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Yes I understand. However
On Sun, 2017-09-17 at 14:41 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 23:42 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes I understand. However with my 'strong sync' patch, such a
> >> balancing check could be useful
Hi Mike,
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 23:42 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>
>> Yes I understand. However with my 'strong sync' patch, such a
>> balancing check could be useful which is what I was trying to do in a
>> different way in my patch - bu
On Sat, 2017-09-16 at 23:42 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> Yes I understand. However with my 'strong sync' patch, such a
> balancing check could be useful which is what I was trying to do in a
> different way in my patch - but it could be that my way is not good
> enough and potentially the old
Hi Rik,
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 23:32 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>
>> To make the load check more meaningful, I am thinking if using
>> wake_affine()'s balance check is a better thing to do than the
>> 'nr_running < 2' check I used in this p
On Thu, 2017-09-14 at 11:56 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> On systems with SMT, it may make more sense for
> sync wakeups to look for idle threads of the same
> core, than to have the woken task end up on the
> same thread, and wait for the current task to stop
> running.
Depends.
homer:/root #
On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 23:32 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> To make the load check more meaningful, I am thinking if using
> wake_affine()'s balance check is a better thing to do than the
> 'nr_running < 2' check I used in this patch. Then again, since commit
> 3fed382b46baac ("sched/numa: Implem
On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 23:32 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> Thanks a lot for sharing the history of this.
>
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 09:53 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >>
> >> Anyone know what in the netperf test triggers use o
Hi Mike,
Thanks a lot for sharing the history of this.
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 7:55 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 09:53 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>
>> Anyone know what in the netperf test triggers use of the sync flag?
>
> homer:..kernel/linux-master # git grep wake_up_int
On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 09:53 -0700, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
> Anyone know what in the netperf test triggers use of the sync flag?
homer:..kernel/linux-master # git grep wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll net
net/core/sock.c:wake_up_interruptible_sync_poll(&wq->wait,
POLLIN | POLLPRI
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 6:40 AM, kernel test robot
wrote:
>
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a -11.3% regression of netperf.Throughput_tps due to commit:
>
>
> commit: 6d46bd3d970382b83554b56a34f231d5d1dd ("sched/fair: Improve the
> behavior of sync flag")
> url:
> https://github.com/0da
11 matches
Mail list logo
