Re: [PATCH] sched: smart wake-affine

[Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 07/02/2013 01:38 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 12:43 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> 
>> +static int nasty_pull(struct task_struct *p)
>> +{
>> +	int factor = cpumask_weight(cpu_online_mask);
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Yeah, it's the switching-frequency, could means many wakee or
>> +	 * rapidly switch, use factor here will just help to automatically
>> +	 * adjust the loose-degree, so more cpu will lead to more pull.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (p->nr_wakee_switch > factor) {
>> +		/*
>> +		 * wakee is somewhat hot, it needs certain amount of cpu
>> +		 * resource, so if waker is far more hot, prefer to leave
>> +		 * it alone.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (current->nr_wakee_switch > (factor * p->nr_wakee_switch))
>> +			return 1;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
> 
> Ew.  I haven't gotten around to test-driving this patchlet, and I see
> you haven't gotten around to finding a better name either.  Any other
> name will likely have a better chance of flying.

Trust me, I've tried to get a good name...and some cells in my brain do
sacrificed for it, bravely ;-)

> 
> tasks_related()
> ...
> well, nearly any..
> tasks_think_wake_affine_sucks_rocks()
> ..that won't fly either :)

Hmm...better than those in my mind (like dragon_wake_affine(), well...at
least dragon could fly).

Anyway, if the idea itself become acceptable, then any name is ok for
me, let's figure out a good one at that time :)

Regards,
Michael Wang


> 
> -Mike
>