On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 23:59 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 23:56 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 14:44 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > The problem the patch is trying to address is not having to scan an > > > > entire package for idle cores on every wakeup now that packages are > > > > getting stupid big. > > > > > > No, it does something *else* too. That whole "left-right" logic to > > > (according to the commit message) "prevent bouncing" is entirely new, > > > afaik. > > > > > > So it is *not* just about avoiding to have to scan the whole package. > > > It changes actual semantics too. No? > > > > Both things change semantics, not looking at the entire package is new > > too. But yeah I guess you could look at the exact cross-stitching as an > > enhancement to the 'idle_buggy' thing. > > What I'm saying is that having an idle_buggy means you have to assign > one in the first place, his left-right stuff might not be the simplest > means to do that -- in fact I suggested he do a simple shift first time > I saw that patch.
Shift just means that upon perturbation, tasks shift their way around the package vs random bounce around, that's why I cross wired. > So if not the left-right thing, you still need to do _something_ to make > the idle_buggy work at all. So its not entirely separate. Yeah. -Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
