Re: [patch 2/2] sched: fix select_idle_sibling() logic inselect_task_rq_fair()

[Mike Galbraith]

On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 14:24 -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 12:25 -0800, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 10:39 -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> > > plain text document attachment (fix_lat_ctx.patch)
> > > Performance improvements with this patch:
> > > "lat_ctx -s 0 2" ~22usec (before-this-patch)	~5usec (after-this-patch)
> > 
> > Hm.  On my Q6600 box, it's nowhere near that.
> 
> My numbers are based on an atom netbook.

Wish I had an atom to play with, hard to even imagine 22 usec lat_ctx,
that's some _serious_ pain.

> > Calling the waking cpu idle in that case is a mistake.  Just because the
> > sync hint was used does not mean there is no gain to be had. 
> 
> Ok. I dropped that part in v2 patches that I just posted.

Yeah, I see mails (ramble ramble) crossed in the night.  I'll take them
out for a spin, see if your box can get fixed up without busting mine :)

	-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/