Re: [patch] sched: optimize siblings status check logic in wake_idle()

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 05:58:31AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 08:13:09PM -0800, Suresh B wrote: > > On a 16 node system, we have seen ~1.25% perf improvement on a database > > workload > > when we completely short circuited wake_idle(). This patch is trying to > > comeup

Re: [patch] sched: optimize siblings status check logic in wake_idle()

On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 08:13:09PM -0800, Suresh B wrote: > On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 03:35:34AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 08:23:32PM -0800, Suresh B wrote: > > > When a logical cpu 'x' already has more than one process running, then > > > most likely > > > the siblings o

Re: [patch] sched: optimize siblings status check logic in wake_idle()

On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 03:35:34AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 08:23:32PM -0800, Suresh B wrote: > > When a logical cpu 'x' already has more than one process running, then most > > likely > > the siblings of that cpu 'x' must be busy. Otherwise the idle siblings > > would h

Re: [patch] sched: optimize siblings status check logic in wake_idle()

On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 08:23:32PM -0800, Suresh B wrote: > When a logical cpu 'x' already has more than one process running, then most > likely > the siblings of that cpu 'x' must be busy. Otherwise the idle siblings > would have likely(in most of the scenarios) picked up the extra load making >