Re: [PATCH] sched: wake-affine throttle

[Mike Galbraith]

On Thu, 2013-04-11 at 16:26 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:

> The 1:N is a good reason to explain why the chance that wakee's hot data
> cached on curr_cpu is lower, and since it's just 'lower' not 'extinct',
> after the throttle interval large enough, it will be balanced, this
> could be proved, since during my test, when the interval become too big,
> the improvement start to drop.

Magnitude of improvement drops just because there's less damage done
methinks.  You'll eventually run out of measurable damage :)

Yes, it's not really extinct, you _can_ reap a gain, it's just not at
all likely to work out.  A more symetric load will fare better, but any
1:N thing just has to spread far and wide to have any chance to perform.
> Hmm...that's an interesting point, the workload contain different
> 'priority' works, and depend on each other, if mother starving, all the
> kids could do nothing but wait for her, may be that's the reason why the
> benefit is so significant, since in such case, mother's little quicker
> respond will make all the kids happy :)

Exactly.  The entire load is server latency bound.  Keep the server on
cpu, the load performs as best it can given unavoidable data miss cost.

-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/