On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 02:30 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > 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...
Hm, seems the thing to do would be to tell select_task_rq_fair() to keep it's mitts off of tasks that the numasched stuff has placed rather than decapitating select_idle_sibling() or some other drastic measure. -Mike -- 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/
