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

[Josef Bacik]

On 05/28/2015 07:05 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> So maybe you want something like the below; that cures the thing Morten
> raised, and we continue looking for sd, even after we found affine_sd.
>
> It also avoids the pointless idle_cpu() check Mike raised by making
> select_idle_sibling() return -1 if it doesn't find anything.
>
> Then it continues doing the full balance IFF sd was set, which is keyed
> off of sd->flags.
>
> And note (as Mike already said), BALANCE_WAKE does _NOT_ look for idle
> CPUs, it looks for the least loaded CPU. And its damn expensive.

Sorry I was just assuming based on the commit message when WAKE_IDLE was 
removed, this isn't my area.

> Rewriting this entire thing is somewhere on the todo list :/

Thanks I'm building and deploying this so I can run our perf test, I'll 
have results in ~3 hours.

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/