Message-ID: <1436453169.3922.8.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] sched: beef up wake_wide()
From: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>, riel@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
        kernel-team <Kernel-team@fb.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 16:46:09 +0200
In-Reply-To: <1436450846.3477.98.camel@gmail.com>
References: <1436025462.17152.37.camel@gmail.com>
	 <1436080661.22930.22.camel@gmail.com> <1436159590.5850.27.camel@gmail.com>
	 <559A91F4.7000903@fb.com> <1436207790.2940.30.camel@gmail.com>
	 <559AD9CE.4090309@fb.com> <1436241678.1836.29.camel@gmail.com>
	 <1436262224.1836.74.camel@gmail.com> <559C0700.6090009@fb.com>
	 <1436336026.3767.53.camel@gmail.com>
	 <20150709132654.GE3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
	 <1436450846.3477.98.camel@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1780
Lines: 39

On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 16:07 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-09 at 15:26 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 08:13:46AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > > 
> > > +/*
> > > + * Detect 1:N waker/wakee relationship via a switching-frequency heuristic.
> > > + * A waker of many should wake a different task than the one last awakened
> > > + * at a frequency roughly N times higher than one of its wakees.  In order
> > > + * to determine whether we should let the load spread vs consolodating to
> > > + * shared cache, we look for a minimum 'flip' frequency of llc_size in one
> > > + * partner, and a factor of lls_size higher frequency in the other.  With
> > > + * both conditions met, we can be relatively sure that we are seeing a 1:N
> > > + * relationship, and that load size exceeds socket size.
> > > + */
> > >  static int wake_wide(struct task_struct *p)
> > >  {
> > > +	unsigned int waker_flips = current->wakee_flips;
> > > +	unsigned int wakee_flips = p->wakee_flips;
> > >  	int factor = this_cpu_read(sd_llc_size);
> > >  
> > > +	if (waker_flips < wakee_flips)
> > > +		swap(waker_flips, wakee_flips);
> > 
> > This makes the wakee/waker names useless, the end result is more like
> > wakee_flips := client_flips, waker_flips := server_flips.
> 
> True, perhaps a rename is in order.

I should perhaps add that waker/wakee_flips does make sense to me in the
sense that the task who's flips end up in the waker_flips bucket is our
waker of many vs being one its many wakees.

	-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/