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

[Ingo Molnar]

* Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 12:21 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
> > In fact, select_idle_sibling() is already too expensive on current
> > server hardware (far too damn many cpus in a LLC domain).
> 
> Yup.  I've played with rate limiting motion per task because of that.
> Packages have gotten way too damn big.

What's the biggest you've seen?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/