On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 11:06 -0700, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 06/11/2015 10:35 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 13:05 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > If sd == NULL, we fall through and try to pull wakee despite nacked-by
> > tsk_cpus_allowed() or wake_affine().
> >
>
> So maybe add a check in the if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_WAKE) for something
> like this
>
> if (tmp >= 0) {
> new_cpu = tmp;
> goto unlock;
> } else if (!want_affine) {
> new_cpu = prev_cpu;
> }
>
> so we can make sure we're not being pushed onto a cpu that we aren't
> allowed on? Thanks,
The buglet is a messenger methinks. You saying the patch helped without
SD_BALANCE_WAKE being set is why I looked. The buglet would seem to say
that preferring cache is not harming your load after all. It now sounds
as though wake_wide() may be what you're squabbling with.
Things aren't adding up all that well.
-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/
