Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:35:21 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Michael Wang <wangyun@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ram Pai <linuxram@us.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: wake-affine throttle
Message-ID: <20130422103521.GA14103@gmail.com>
References: <5164DCE7.8080906@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1366626208.2721.12.camel@laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1366626208.2721.12.camel@laptop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 785
Lines: 25


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> OK,.. Ingo said that pipe-test was the original motivation for 
> wake_affine() and since that's currently broken to pieces due to 
> select_idle_sibling() is there still a benefit to having it at all?
> 
> Can anybody find any significant regression when simply killing 
> wake_affine()?

I'd suggest doing a patch that does:

   s/SD_WAKE_AFFINE/0*SD_WAKE_AFFINE

in all the relevant toplogy.h files, but otherwise keep the logic in 
place. That way it's easy to revert.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/