On 18/06/16 00:13, Dario Faggioli wrote: > because it is cheaper, and there is no much point in > randomizing which cpu gets selected anyway, as such > choice will be overridden shortly after, in runq_tickle(). > > If we really feel the need (e.g., we prove it worth with > benchmarking), we can record the last cpu which was used > by csched2_cpu_pick() and migrate() in a per-runq variable, > and then use cpumask_cycle()... but this really does not > look necessary.
Isn't this backwards? Surely you should demonstrate that this change is beneficial before proposing it? I don't think any performance related change should be accepted without experimental evidence that it makes something better, especially if it looks like it might have negative consequences (e.g., by favouring low cpus). David _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
