Re: [PATCH RFC/TEST] sched: make sync affine wakeups work

[Rik van Riel]

On 05/02/2014 03:37 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 02:30 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: 
>> On 05/02/2014 02:13 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 00:42 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Whether or not this is the right thing to do remains to be seen,
>>>> but it does allow us to verify whether or not the wake_affine
>>>> strategy of always doing affine wakeups and only disabling them
>>>> in a specific circumstance is sound, or needs rethinking...
>>>
>>> Yes, it needs rethinking.
>>>
>>> I know why you want to try this, yes, select_idle_sibling() is very much
>>> a two faced little bitch.
>>
>> My biggest problem with select_idle_sibling and wake_affine in
>> general is that it will override NUMA placement, even when
>> processes only wake each other up infrequently...
> 
> Hm, seems the thing to do would be to tell select_task_rq_fair() to keep
> it's mitts off of tasks that the numasched stuff has placed rather than
> decapitating select_idle_sibling() or some other drastic measure.

Thing is, if tasks are waking each other up frequently enough, we
probably DO want to place them near each other with select_idle_sibling.

We just cannot afford to have it as the default behaviour for casual
wakeup activity, because it will mess up other things.

-- 
All rights reversed
--
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/