On 07/14/2015 01:59 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 12:01 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
We happy with this or should I wait for more patches to fly by before I
test something ;)?
Yeah, it should be The End time.
It's showing the same thing as one of the many earlier patches, it'
On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 12:01 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> We happy with this or should I wait for more patches to fly by before I
> test something ;)?
Yeah, it should be The End time.
-Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a messa
On 07/14/2015 11:39 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 17:04 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 04:17:46PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
There's a buglet,
We'll not look for a idle cpu when wake_wide() naks want_affine.
*sigh* indeed.. fixing that'll bring us
On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 17:04 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 04:17:46PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > There's a buglet,
>
> > We'll not look for a idle cpu when wake_wide() naks want_affine.
>
> *sigh* indeed.. fixing that'll bring us very close to what we started
> out
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 04:17:46PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> There's a buglet,
> We'll not look for a idle cpu when wake_wide() naks want_affine.
*sigh* indeed.. fixing that'll bring us very close to what we started
out wiht..
The one XXX there raises the question on whether we should alwa
On Tue, 2015-07-14 at 16:07 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:49:17PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > 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:
> > >
> > >
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:49:17PM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 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
>
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 s
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 05:11:51AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 16:59 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> > Not quite as awesome but still better than the baseline so we're good.
> > Thanks,
>
> I personally like the other much better. We're not doing the user any
> favor by m
On 07/10/2015 11:11 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 16:59 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
Not quite as awesome but still better than the baseline so we're good.
Thanks,
I personally like the other much better. We're not doing the user any
favor by making the thing balance when SD_B
On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 16:59 -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Not quite as awesome but still better than the baseline so we're good.
> Thanks,
I personally like the other much better. We're not doing the user any
favor by making the thing balance when SD_BALANCE_WAKE is set. Until
such time as it ce
On 07/10/2015 01:19 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 15:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:13:46AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
static int wake_wide(struct task_struct *p)
{
+ unsigned int waker_flips = current->wakee_flips;
+ unsigned int
On 07/10/2015 01:19 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 15:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:13:46AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
static int wake_wide(struct task_struct *p)
{
+ unsigned int waker_flips = current->wakee_flips;
+ unsigned int
On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 15:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:13:46AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > static int wake_wide(struct task_struct *p)
> > {
> > + unsigned int waker_flips = current->wakee_flips;
> > + unsigned int wakee_flips = p->wakee_flips;
> > int
On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 16:07 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 15:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:13:46AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Detect 1:N waker/wakee relationship via a switching-frequency
> > > heuristic.
> > > +
On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 15:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:13:46AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Detect 1:N waker/wakee relationship via a switching-frequency heuristic.
> > + * A waker of many should wake a different task than the one last awakened
>
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:13:46AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> +/*
> + * Detect 1:N waker/wakee relationship via a switching-frequency heuristic.
> + * A waker of many should wake a different task than the one last awakened
> + * at a frequency roughly N times higher than one of its wakees.
Josef Bacik reported that Facebook sees better performance with their
1:N load (1 dispatch/node, N workers/node) when carrying an old patch
to try very hard to wake to an idle CPU. While looking at wake_wide(),
I noticed that it doesn't pay attention to wakeup of the 1:N waker,
returning 1 only w
18 matches
Mail list logo
