From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.jf.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Yanmin Zhang <yanmin_zhang@linux.jf.intel.com>,
Gautham R Shenoy <ego@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] sched: check for prev_cpu == this_cpu in wake_affine()
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:09:51 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1268075392.2830.57.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1267817792.6384.37.camel@marge.simson.net>
hi Mike,
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:36 -0800, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> Yeah, but with the 1 task + non-sync wakeup scenario, we miss the boat
> because select_idle_sibling() uses wake_affine() success as it's
> enabler.
But the wake_affine() decision is broken when this_cpu == prev_cpu. All
we need to do is to fix that, to recover that ~9% improvement.
> I have a slightly different patch for that in my tree. There's no need
> to even call wake_affine() since the result is meaningless.
I don't think your below fix is correct because:
> - if (affine_sd && wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync))
> - return cpu;
> + if (affine_sd) {
> + if (cpu == prev_cpu)
> + return cpu;
by this time, we have overwritten cpu using the select_idle_sibling()
logic and cpu no longer points to this_cpu.
What we need is a comparison with this_cpu.
thanks,
suresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-08 19:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-05 18:39 Suresh Siddha
2010-03-05 18:39 ` [patch 2/2] sched: fix select_idle_sibling() logic in select_task_rq_fair() Suresh Siddha
2010-03-05 20:25 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-03-06 8:21 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-03-08 22:24 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-03-09 6:05 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-03-09 13:27 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-03-10 21:14 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-03-06 8:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2010-03-05 19:36 ` [patch 1/2] sched: check for prev_cpu == this_cpu in wake_affine() Mike Galbraith
2010-03-08 19:09 ` Suresh Siddha [this message]
2010-03-08 22:25 ` Mike Galbraith
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1268075392.2830.57.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com \
--to=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=arjan@linux.jf.intel.com \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=ego@in.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=svaidy@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=yanmin_zhang@linux.jf.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®