On 04/24/2018 07:51 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
On 24-04-18, 15:34, Rohit Jain wrote:
Including the "unlikely" suggestion and the original patch, as expected
with a quick hackbench test on a 44 core 2 socket x86 machine causes no
change in performance.
Want me to include your Tested-by in next ve
On Wednesday 25 Apr 2018 at 15:43:13 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25-04-18, 10:39, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 Apr 2018 at 14:33:27 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > On 25-04-18, 09:13, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > > While you're at it, you could probably remove the one in wake_c
On 25-04-18, 10:39, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 Apr 2018 at 14:33:27 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 25-04-18, 09:13, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > While you're at it, you could probably remove the one in wake_cap() ? I
> > > think having just one in select_task_rq_fair() should be en
On Wednesday 25 Apr 2018 at 14:33:27 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 25-04-18, 09:13, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > While you're at it, you could probably remove the one in wake_cap() ? I
> > think having just one in select_task_rq_fair() should be enough.
>
> Just make it clear, you are asking me t
On 25-04-18, 09:13, Quentin Perret wrote:
> While you're at it, you could probably remove the one in wake_cap() ? I
> think having just one in select_task_rq_fair() should be enough.
Just make it clear, you are asking me to remove sync_entity_load_avg()
in wake_cap() ? But aren't we required to do
On Wednesday 25 Apr 2018 at 10:45:09 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 24-04-18, 14:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > In any case, if there not going to be conflicts here, this all looks
> > good.
>
> Thanks Peter.
>
> I also had another patch and wasn't sure if that would be the right
> thing to do.
On Tuesday 24 Apr 2018 at 14:35:23 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:19:07PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > On 24/04/18 11:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:02:26AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > >> I'd argue making things easier to rea
On 24-04-18, 14:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> In any case, if there not going to be conflicts here, this all looks
> good.
Thanks Peter.
I also had another patch and wasn't sure if that would be the right
thing to do. The main purpose of this is to avoid calling
sync_entity_load_avg() unnecessarily
On 24-04-18, 15:34, Rohit Jain wrote:
> Including the "unlikely" suggestion and the original patch, as expected
> with a quick hackbench test on a 44 core 2 socket x86 machine causes no
> change in performance.
Want me to include your Tested-by in next version ?
--
viresh
On 04/24/2018 08:47 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:19:07PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
On 24/04/18 11:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:46 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:19:07PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>> On 24/04/18 11:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:02:26AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wr
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:19:07PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> On 24/04/18 11:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:02:26AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> >> I'd argue making things easier to read is a non-ne
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:19:07PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 24/04/18 11:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:02:26AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> >> I'd argue making things easier to read is a non-negligible part as well.
> >
> > Right, so I don't object to e
On 24/04/18 11:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:02:26AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> I'd argue making things easier to read is a non-negligible part as well.
>
> Right, so I don't object to either of these (I think); but it would be
> good to see this in combination wi
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:02:26AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> I'd argue making things easier to read is a non-negligible part as well.
Right, so I don't object to either of these (I think); but it would be
good to see this in combination with that proposed EAS change.
I think you (valenti
On 24-04-18, 11:02, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index cacee15..ad09b67 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -6613,7 +6613,7 @@ static int wake_cap(struct task_struct *p, int cpu, int
> prev_cpu)
> static int
>
Hi,
On 23/04/18 11:38, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Rearrange select_task_rq_fair() a bit to avoid executing some
> conditional statements in few specific code-paths. That gets rid of the
> goto as well.
>
I'd argue making things easier to read is a non-negligible part as well.
> This shouldn't result
17 matches
Mail list logo
