On 06/01/2015 03:38 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Ok I got this patch to give me the same performance as all our other
> crap, just need to apply this incremental
>
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index b71eb2b..e11cfec 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4761,13 +4761,10 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct task_struct *p, int
> prev_cpu, int sd_flag, int wake_f
>
> if (tmp->flags & sd_flag)
> sd = tmp;
> - else if (!want_affine || (want_affine && affine_sd))
> - break;
> }
>
> if (affine_sd && cpu != prev_cpu && wake_affine(affine_sd, p, sync)) {
> prev_cpu = cpu;
> - sd = NULL; /* WAKE_AFFINE trumps BALANCE_WAKE */
Given Peter's worries about wake_affine and affine_sd,
should the above be sd = affine_sd, in case select_idle_sibling
cannot find an idle sibling?
That way we can attempt to at least find an idle cpu inside
the affine_sd.
Of course, there may be subtleties here I am overlooking...
> }
>
> if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE) {
--
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/
