On Fri, 2013-02-22 at 10:37 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> But that's really some benefit hardly to be estimate, especially when
> the workload is heavy, the cost of wake_affine() is very high to
> calculated se one by one, is that worth for some benefit we could not
> promise?
Look at something like pipe-test.. wake_affine() used to ensure both
client/server ran on the same cpu, but then I think we added
select_idle_sibling() and wrecked it again :/
$ taskset 1 perf bench sched pipe
# Running sched/pipe benchmark...
# Extecuted 1000000 pipe operations between two tasks
Total time: 3.761 [sec]
3.761725 usecs/op
265835 ops/sec
$ perf bench sched pipe
# Running sched/pipe benchmark...
# Extecuted 1000000 pipe operations between two tasks
Total time: 29.809 [sec]
29.809720 usecs/op
33546 ops/sec
Now as far as I can see there's two options, either we find there's
absolutely no benefit in wake_affine() as it stands today and we simply
disable/remove it, or we go fix it. What we don't do is completely
wreck it at atrocious cost.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
