Re: [PATCH v3 05/22] sched: remove domain iterations infork/exec/wake

[Morten Rasmussen]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:46:31AM +0000, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 01/10/2013 02:21 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> >>  		new_cpu = find_idlest_cpu(group, p, cpu);
> >> > -
> >> > -		/* Now try balancing at a lower domain level of new_cpu */
> >> > -		cpu = new_cpu;
> >> > -		weight = sd->span_weight;
> >> > -		sd = NULL;
> >> > -		for_each_domain(cpu, tmp) {
> >> > -			if (weight <= tmp->span_weight)
> >> > -				break;
> >> > -			if (tmp->flags & sd_flag)
> >> > -				sd = tmp;
> >> > -		}
> >> > -		/* while loop will break here if sd == NULL */
> > I agree that this should be a major optimization. I just can't figure
> > out why the existing recursive search for an idle cpu switches to the
> > new cpu near the end and then starts a search for an idle cpu in the new
> > cpu's domain. Is this to handle some exotic sched domain configurations?
> > If so, they probably wouldn't work with your optimizations.
> 
> I did not find odd configuration that asking for old logical.
> 
> According to Documentation/scheduler/sched-domains.txt, Maybe never.
> "A domain's span MUST be a superset of it child's span (this restriction
> could be relaxed if the need arises), and a base domain for CPU i MUST
> span at least i."  etc. etc.

The reason for my suspicion is the SD_OVERLAP flag, which has something
to do overlapping sched domains. I haven't looked into what it does or
how it works. I'm just wondering if this optimization will affect the
use of that flag.

Morten

> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks Alex
> 

--
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/