On Wed, 2016-05-11 at 07:42 +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> Do you have any suggestion about doing other part of
> select_task_rq_fair?
Conjure up a decent metric for placing tasks in tasty hot L2? That
would be really lovely to have (/me pondering page faults..).
We used to have an avg_overlap heuri
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 09:00:29AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 05:05:50AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 12:48:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > + i = select_idle_core(p, sd, target);
> > > + if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
> > > + re
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 05:05:50AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 12:48:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > + i = select_idle_core(p, sd, target);
> > + if ((unsigned)i < nr_cpumask_bits)
> > + return i;
> > +
> > + i = select_idle_cpu(p, sd, target);
> > + if
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 12:48:12PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +/*
> + * Scan the LLC domain for idle CPUs; this is dynamically regulated by
> + * comparing the average scan cost (tracked in sd->avg_scan_cost) against the
tracked in this_sd->avg_scan_cost
select_idle_siblings() is a known pain point for a number of
workloads; it either does too much or not enough and sometimes just
does plain wrong.
This rewrite attempts to address a number of issues (but sadly not
all).
The current code does an unconditional sched_domain iteration; with
the inten
5 matches
Mail list logo
