From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754853Ab3B1PbO (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:31:14 -0500 Received: from mail-pb0-f48.google.com ([209.85.160.48]:52050 "EHLO mail-pb0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752991Ab3B1PbM (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2013 10:31:12 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: wakeup buddy From: Namhyung Kim To: Mike Galbraith Cc: Michael Wang , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Paul Turner , Alex Shi , Andrew Morton , Ram Pai , "Nikunj A. Dadhania" In-Reply-To: <1362046013.4460.195.camel@marge.simpson.net> References: <512EFB4B.5040204@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87hakwssc9.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com> <1362046013.4460.195.camel@marge.simpson.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:31:05 +0900 Message-ID: <1362065465.1758.15.camel@leonhard> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 ;-) > > ?? Meaningful relationships are bare minimum bidirectional, how can you > describe one connection and have it remain meaningful? I love "her" is > unlikely to lead to anything meaningful if "she" doesn't know you exist. Maybe I misunderstood something. I was thinking about typical cooperation models like manager-worker, producer-consumer or pipeline and thought that they are usually one-way relationship in terms of the wakeup. Thanks, Namhyung