On 07/02/2019 09:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
>> I'm afraid I don't follow - we don't lose a balance opportunity with the
>> below change (compared to the original patch), do we?
>
> What if each big/little cluster would have multiple cache domains? Would
> we not want to spread the cache
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 05:26:06PM +, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 06/02/2019 16:14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> [...]
> >> @@ -9545,6 +9545,17 @@ static void nohz_balancer_kick(struct rq *rq)
> >>}
> >>
> >>rcu_read_lock();
> >> +
> >> + if
Hi,
On 06/02/2019 16:14, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[...]
>> @@ -9545,6 +9545,17 @@ static void nohz_balancer_kick(struct rq *rq)
>> }
>>
>> rcu_read_lock();
>> +
>> +if (static_branch_unlikely(_asym_cpucapacity))
>> +/*
>> + * For asymmetric systems, we do not
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 03:34:11PM +, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> The LLC nohz condition will become true as soon as >=2 CPUs in a
> single LLC domain are busy. On big.LITTLE systems, this translates to
> two or more CPUs of a "cluster" (big or LITTLE) being busy.
>
> Issuing a nohz kick in
The LLC nohz condition will become true as soon as >=2 CPUs in a
single LLC domain are busy. On big.LITTLE systems, this translates to
two or more CPUs of a "cluster" (big or LITTLE) being busy.
Issuing a nohz kick in these conditions isn't desired for asymmetric
systems, as if the busy CPUs can
5 matches
Mail list logo