On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:07:13AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 09:31 +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:21:46AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 09:11:37AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > > > The SD_BALANCE_WAKE is irrelevant in the contexts of these two removals,
> > > > and in addition SD_BALANCE_WAKE is not and should not be set in any
> > > > sched_domain flags so far.
> > >
> > > This Changelog doesn't make any sense...
> >
> > How? SD_BALANCE_WAKE is not in any sched_domain flags (sd->flags), even if
> > it is, it is not used anywhere, no?
>
> If the user chooses to set SD_BALANCE_WAKE in sd->flags, it is in fact
> used. It's just not turned on by default due to full balance on every
> wakeup being far too painful to do by default.
Yup. Up to this point, we don't have any disagreement. And I don't think we
have any disagreement conceptually. What the next patch really does is:
(1) we don't remove SD_BALANCE_WAKE as an important sched_domain flag, on
the contrary, we strengthen it.
(2) the semantic of SD_BALANCE_WAKE is currently represented by SD_WAKE_AFFINE,
we actually remove this representation.
(3) regarding the semantic of SD_WAKE_AFFINE, it is really not about selecting
waker CPU or about the fast path. Conceptually, it is just saying the waker
CPU is a valid and important candidate if SD_BALANCE_WAKE, which is just so
obvious, so I don't think it deserves to be a separate sched_domain flag.
(4) the outcome is, if SD_BALANCE_WAKE, we definitely will/should try waker CPU,
and if !SD_BALANCE_WAKE, we don't try waker CPU. So nothing functional is
changed.
