From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752500AbaEBHFB (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 03:05:01 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:3218 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751791AbaEBHFA (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 03:05:00 -0400 Message-ID: <53633B81.1080403@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 02:30:25 -0400 From: Rik van Riel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Galbraith CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, george.mccollister@gmail.com, ktkhai@parallels.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC/TEST] sched: make sync affine wakeups work References: <20140502004237.79dd3de6@annuminas.surriel.com> <1399011219.5233.55.camel@marge.simpson.net> In-Reply-To: <1399011219.5233.55.camel@marge.simpson.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/02/2014 02:13 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 00:42 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > >> Whether or not this is the right thing to do remains to be seen, >> but it does allow us to verify whether or not the wake_affine >> strategy of always doing affine wakeups and only disabling them >> in a specific circumstance is sound, or needs rethinking... > > Yes, it needs rethinking. > > I know why you want to try this, yes, select_idle_sibling() is very much > a two faced little bitch. My biggest problem with select_idle_sibling and wake_affine in general is that it will override NUMA placement, even when processes only wake each other up infrequently... -- All rights reversed