Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754253Ab3DVRuX (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:50:23 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f54.google.com ([209.85.215.54]:35394 "EHLO mail-la0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754015Ab3DVRuV (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:50:21 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1366626208.2721.12.camel@laptop> References: <5164DCE7.8080906@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1366626208.2721.12.camel@laptop> From: Paul Turner Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:49:50 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: wake-affine throttle To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Michael Wang , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Mike Galbraith , Alex Shi , Namhyung Kim , Andrew Morton , "Nikunj A. Dadhania" , Ram Pai Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 872 Lines: 21 On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Peter Zijlstra 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()? > This matches our experience; we've always tuned toward a more aggressive select_idle_sibling() for in-socket wake-ups. We did recently turn it back on in the cross-socket case (e.g. SD_NODE) however as we were able to observe a benefit on a few workloads. -- 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/