Re: sched: Avoid SMT siblings in select_idle_sibling() if possible

[Ingo Molnar]

* Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2012-02-20 20:07:46]:
> 
> > On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 19:14 +0100, Mike Galbraith wrote:

> > > Enabling SD_BALANCE_WAKE used to be decidedly too 
> > > expensive to consider. Maybe that has changed, but I doubt 
> > > it.
> > 
> > Right, I through I remembered somet such, you could see it 
> > on wakeup heavy things like pipe-bench and that java msg 
> > passing thing, right?
> 
> I did some experiments with volanomark and it does turn out to 
> be sensitive to SD_BALANCE_WAKE, while the other wake-heavy 
> benchmark that I am dealing with (Trade) benefits from it.

Does volanomark still do yield(), thereby invoking a random 
shuffle of thread scheduling and pretty much voluntarily 
ejecting itself from most scheduler performance considerations?

If it uses a real locking primitive such as futexes then its 
performance matters more.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/