From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753764Ab1LZCes (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Dec 2011 21:34:48 -0500 Received: from e23smtp07.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.140]:35414 "EHLO e23smtp07.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753558Ab1LZCel (ORCPT ); Sun, 25 Dec 2011 21:34:41 -0500 From: Nikunj A Dadhania To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com, bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] sched:Implement set_gang_buddy In-Reply-To: <1324309908.24621.16.camel@twins> References: <20111219083141.32311.9429.stgit@abhimanyu.in.ibm.com> <20111219083504.32311.85836.stgit@abhimanyu.in.ibm.com> <1324309908.24621.16.camel@twins> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+70~gf0e0053 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1 (x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 08:00:23 +0530 Message-ID: <87y5u0t680.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii x-cbid: 11122516-0260-0000-0000-0000004BBE14 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:51:48 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 14:05 +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote: > > + /* > > + * Gang buddy, lets be unfair here > > + */ > > And why would you think that's an option? > Long answer, my previous experiments with set_next_buddy showed that the gang groups were getting lesser cpu bandwidth than the baseline. Then I thought of having a new helper(set_gang_buddy) that would give better chance to gang sched tasks. This will only be affecting the following cpus. In the cpu, which has gang_leader set, the code is not giving undue advantage to the gang task. Regards, Nikunj