On 05/02/2014 02:13 AM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 00:42 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > >> Whether or not this is the right thing to do remains to be seen, >> but it does allow us to verify whether or not the wake_affine >> strategy of always doing affine wakeups and only disabling them >> in a specific circumstance is sound, or needs rethinking... > > Yes, it needs rethinking. > > I know why you want to try this, yes, select_idle_sibling() is very much > a two faced little bitch.
My biggest problem with select_idle_sibling and wake_affine in general is that it will override NUMA placement, even when processes only wake each other up infrequently... -- All rights reversed -- 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/
