From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751469AbaEBFcG (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 01:32:06 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f42.google.com ([74.125.83.42]:41678 "EHLO mail-ee0-f42.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750841AbaEBFcF (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 May 2014 01:32:05 -0400 Message-ID: <1399008721.5233.35.camel@marge.simpson.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC/TEST] sched: make sync affine wakeups work From: Mike Galbraith To: Rik van Riel Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, george.mccollister@gmail.com, ktkhai@parallels.com Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 07:32:01 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20140502004237.79dd3de6@annuminas.surriel.com> References: <20140502004237.79dd3de6@annuminas.surriel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 00:42 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > Currently sync wakeups from the wake_affine code cannot work as > designed, because the task doing the sync wakeup from the target > cpu will block its wakee from selecting that cpu. > > This is despite the fact that whether or not the wakeup is sync > determines whether or not we want to do an affine wakeup... If the sync hint really did mean we ARE going to schedule RSN, waking local would be a good thing. It is all too often a big fat lie. -Mike