Message-ID: <1433345444.3343.21.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] sched: prefer an idle cpu vs an idle sibling for
 BALANCE_WAKE
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>,
        mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        morten.rasmussen@arm.com, kernel-team <Kernel-team@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 17:30:44 +0200
In-Reply-To: <1433341448.1495.4.camel@twins>
References: <1432761736-22093-1-git-send-email-jbacik@fb.com>
	 <20150528102127.GD3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <20150528110514.GR18673@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <5568D43D.20703@fb.com> <556CB4A8.1050509@fb.com>
	 <1433191354.11346.22.camel@twins> <556DE3FB.9020400@fb.com>
	 <556F0B5E.6030805@redhat.com> <1433341448.1495.4.camel@twins>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 956
Lines: 23

On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 16:24 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 10:12 -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> 
> > There is a policy vs mechanism thing here. Ingo and Peter
> > are worried about the overhead in the mechanism of finding
> > an idle CPU.  Your measurements show that the policy of
> > finding an idle CPU is the correct one.
> 
> For his workload; I'm sure I can find a workload where it hurts.
> 
> In fact, I'm fairly sure Mike knows one from the top of his head, seeing
> how he's the one playing about trying to shrink that idle search :-)

Like anything where scheduling latency doesn't heavily dominate.  Even
if searching were free, bounces aren't, even for the very light.

	-Mike

--
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/