From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>,
mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
morten.rasmussen@arm.com, kernel-team <Kernel-team@fb.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:30:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1433345444.3343.21.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1433341448.1495.4.camel@twins>
On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 16:24 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 10:12 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > There is a policy vs mechanism thing here. Ingo and Peter
> > are worried about the overhead in the mechanism of finding
> > an idle CPU. Your measurements show that the policy of
> > finding an idle CPU is the correct one.
>
> For his workload; I'm sure I can find a workload where it hurts.
>
> In fact, I'm fairly sure Mike knows one from the top of his head, seeing
> how he's the one playing about trying to shrink that idle search :-)
Like anything where scheduling latency doesn't heavily dominate. Even
if searching were free, bounces aren't, even for the very light.
-Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-03 15:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-27 21:22 [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE Josef Bacik
2015-05-28 3:46 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-28 9:49 ` Morten Rasmussen
2015-05-28 10:57 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-28 11:48 ` Morten Rasmussen
2015-05-28 11:49 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-28 10:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-28 11:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-28 14:27 ` Josef Bacik
2015-05-29 21:03 ` Josef Bacik
2015-05-30 3:55 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-01 19:38 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-01 20:42 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-06-01 21:03 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-02 17:12 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-03 14:12 ` Rik van Riel
2015-06-03 14:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-06-03 14:49 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-03 15:30 ` Mike Galbraith [this message]
2015-06-03 15:57 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-03 16:53 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-03 17:16 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-03 17:43 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-03 20:34 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-04 4:52 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-01 22:15 ` Rik van Riel
2015-06-11 20:33 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-12 3:42 ` Rik van Riel
2015-06-12 5:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-17 18:06 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-18 0:55 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-06-18 3:46 ` Josef Bacik
2015-06-18 4:12 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-02 17:44 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-03 6:40 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-03 9:29 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-04 15:57 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-05 7:17 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-06 5:13 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-06 14:34 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-06 18:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-06 19:41 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-07 4:01 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-07 9:43 ` [patch] " Mike Galbraith
2015-07-07 13:40 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-07 15:24 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-07 17:06 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-08 6:13 ` [patch] sched: beef up wake_wide() Mike Galbraith
2015-07-09 13:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-09 14:07 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-09 14:46 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-10 5:19 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-10 13:41 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-10 20:59 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-11 3:11 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-13 13:53 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-14 11:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-14 13:49 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-14 14:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-14 14:17 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-14 15:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-07-14 15:39 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-14 16:01 ` Josef Bacik
2015-07-14 17:59 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-07-15 17:11 ` Josef Bacik
2015-08-03 17:07 ` [tip:sched/core] sched/fair: Beef " tip-bot for Mike Galbraith
2015-05-28 11:16 ` [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE Mike Galbraith
2015-05-28 11:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-28 12:15 ` Mike Galbraith
2015-05-28 12:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-28 12:29 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-28 15:22 ` David Ahern
2015-05-28 11:55 ` Srikar Dronamraju
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1433345444.3343.21.camel@gmail.com \
--to=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=Kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=jbacik@fb.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.