Re: [PATCH] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for BALANCE_WAKE

[Josef Bacik]

On 05/27/2015 05:03 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 05/27/2015 04:09 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On 05/26/2015 05:31 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> > > SD_BALANCE_WAKE is supposed to find us an idle cpu to run on, however
> > > it is just
> > > looking for an idle sibling, preferring affinity over all else.  This
> > > is not
> > > helpful in all cases, and SD_BALANCE_WAKE's job is to find us an idle
> > > cpu, not
> > > garuntee affinity.  Fix this by first trying to find an idle sibling,
> > > and then
> > > if the cpu is not idle fall through to the logic to find an idle cpu.
> > > With this
> > > patch we get slightly better performance than with our forward port of
> > > SD_WAKE_IDLE.  Thanks,
> >
> > I rigged up a test script to run the perf bench sched tests and give me
> > the numbers.  Here are the numbers
> >
> > 4.0
> >
> > Messaging: 56.934 Total runtime in seconds
> > Pipe: 105620.762 ops/sec
> >
> > 4.0 + my patch
> >
> > Messaging: 47.374
> > Pipe: 113691.199
>
> I did not get the email with your original patch,
> either to my inbox or my lkml folder, but I saw the
> patch on pastebin, and it looks good.
>
> When you resend it, please feel free to add my
>
> Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Assuming the version you meant to email yesterday was
> the same one that you showed me on pastebin, of course :)

Ha yes it's the same, sorry I'm not sure what happened, I've resent it 
again from a different machine, let me know if you don't get the new one 
and I'll just send it from thunderbird.  Thanks,

Josef
--
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/