Re: [PATCH] sched: wake-affine throttle

[Michael Wang]

On 05/02/2013 03:10 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>
>> I've done the test for several times, also compared with the throttle
>> approach, default 1ms interval still works very well, the regression on
>> hackbench start to exceed 2% when interval become 100ms on my box, but
>> please note the pgbench already gain a lot benefit at that time.
>>
>> I think now we could say that wake-affine is useful, and we could not
>> simply kill it.
> 
> Oh, it's definitely useful.  Communicating tasks deeply resent talking
> over interconnects (advanced tin cans and string).  My little Q6600 box
> can even be described as dinky-numa given enough imagination.. place
> communicating tasks on different core2 "nodes" if you will, throughput
> falls through the floor.  Shared L2 is quick like bunny, dram ain't.

Nice, so we got another proof to defend wake-affine now ;-)

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> -Mike
> 
> --
> 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/
> 

--
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/