On 04/08/2013 06:00 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 13:24 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> if (affine_sd) {
>> - if (cpu != prev_cpu && wake_affine(affine_sd, p,
>> sync))
>> + if (cpu != prev_cpu && wake_affine(affine_sd, p,
>> sync)) {
>> +
On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 13:24 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> if (affine_sd) {
> - if (cpu != prev_cpu && wake_affine(affine_sd, p,
> sync))
> + if (cpu != prev_cpu && wake_affine(affine_sd, p,
> sync)) {
> + /*
> +*
On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 13:24 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
if (affine_sd) {
- if (cpu != prev_cpu wake_affine(affine_sd, p,
sync))
+ if (cpu != prev_cpu wake_affine(affine_sd, p,
sync)) {
+ /*
+* wake_affine()
On 04/08/2013 06:00 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 13:24 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
if (affine_sd) {
- if (cpu != prev_cpu wake_affine(affine_sd, p,
sync))
+ if (cpu != prev_cpu wake_affine(affine_sd, p,
sync)) {
+
On 03/25/2013 01:24 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> Recently testing show that wake-affine stuff cause regression on pgbench, the
> hiding rat was finally catched out.
>
> wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by theory,
> this will benefit us if waker's cpu cached hot data
On 03/25/2013 01:24 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
Recently testing show that wake-affine stuff cause regression on pgbench, the
hiding rat was finally catched out.
wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by theory,
this will benefit us if waker's cpu cached hot data for
On 03/25/2013 10:31 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Do you mean 1ms interval is still too big? and you prefer to have a 0
>> option?
>
> Not really, I just think a fixed interval may not be good enough without
> some idle time consideration. Once a single load gets going less
> balancing
On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 18:21 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> Hi, Mike
>
> Thanks for your reply :)
>
> On 03/25/2013 05:22 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 13:24 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> >> Recently testing show that wake-affine stuff cause regression on pgbench,
> >> the
>
Hi, Mike
Thanks for your reply :)
On 03/25/2013 05:22 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 13:24 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
>> Recently testing show that wake-affine stuff cause regression on pgbench, the
>> hiding rat was finally catched out.
>>
>> wake-affine stuff is always
On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 13:24 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
> Recently testing show that wake-affine stuff cause regression on pgbench, the
> hiding rat was finally catched out.
>
> wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by theory,
> this will benefit us if waker's cpu
On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 13:24 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
Recently testing show that wake-affine stuff cause regression on pgbench, the
hiding rat was finally catched out.
wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by theory,
this will benefit us if waker's cpu cached hot
Hi, Mike
Thanks for your reply :)
On 03/25/2013 05:22 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 13:24 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
Recently testing show that wake-affine stuff cause regression on pgbench, the
hiding rat was finally catched out.
wake-affine stuff is always trying to
On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 18:21 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
Hi, Mike
Thanks for your reply :)
On 03/25/2013 05:22 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 13:24 +0800, Michael Wang wrote:
Recently testing show that wake-affine stuff cause regression on pgbench,
the
hiding rat
On 03/25/2013 10:31 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
Do you mean 1ms interval is still too big? and you prefer to have a 0
option?
Not really, I just think a fixed interval may not be good enough without
some idle time consideration. Once a single load gets going less
balancing is more,
Recently testing show that wake-affine stuff cause regression on pgbench, the
hiding rat was finally catched out.
wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by theory,
this will benefit us if waker's cpu cached hot data for wakee, or the extreme
ping-pong case.
However, the
Recently testing show that wake-affine stuff cause regression on pgbench, the
hiding rat was finally catched out.
wake-affine stuff is always trying to pull wakee close to waker, by theory,
this will benefit us if waker's cpu cached hot data for wakee, or the extreme
ping-pong case.
However, the
16 matches
Mail list logo
