On 09/26/2013 03:09 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: [snip] >> >> Ok, a double-edged sword I see :) >> >> May be we can wave it carefully here, give the discount to a bigger >> scope not the sync cpu, for example: >> >> sg1 sg2 >> cpu0 cpu1 cpu2 cpu3 cpu4 cpu5 cpu6 cpu7 >> waker idle idle idle idle idle idle idle >> >> If it's sync wakeup on cpu0 (only waker), and the sg is wide enough, >> which means one cpu is not so influencial, then suppose cpu0 to be idle >> could be more safe, also prefer sg1 than sg2 is more likely to be right. >> >> And we can still choose idle-cpu at final step, like cpu1 in this case, >> to avoid the risk that waker don't get off as it said. >> >> The key point is to reduce the influence of sync, trust a little but not >> totally ;-) > > What we need is a dirt cheap way to fairly accurately predict overlap > potential (todo: write omniscience().. patent, buy planet).
Agree, solutions for such cases are usually incredible ;-) Regards, Michael Wang > > -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/ > -- 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/
