Re: [PATCH RFC] sched,numa: decay wakee_flips instead of zeroing

2014-05-16 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:13:32AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > Affine wakeups have the potential to interfere with NUMA placement. > If a task wakes up too many other tasks, affine wakeups will get > disabled. > > However, regardless of how many other tasks it wakes up, it gets > re-enabled once

Re: [PATCH RFC] sched,numa: decay wakee_flips instead of zeroing

2014-05-16 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:13:32AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: Affine wakeups have the potential to interfere with NUMA placement. If a task wakes up too many other tasks, affine wakeups will get disabled. However, regardless of how many other tasks it wakes up, it gets re-enabled once a

[PATCH RFC] sched,numa: decay wakee_flips instead of zeroing

2014-05-15 Thread Rik van Riel
Affine wakeups have the potential to interfere with NUMA placement. If a task wakes up too many other tasks, affine wakeups will get disabled. However, regardless of how many other tasks it wakes up, it gets re-enabled once a second, potentially interfering with NUMA placement of other tasks. By

[PATCH RFC] sched,numa: decay wakee_flips instead of zeroing

2014-05-15 Thread Rik van Riel
Affine wakeups have the potential to interfere with NUMA placement. If a task wakes up too many other tasks, affine wakeups will get disabled. However, regardless of how many other tasks it wakes up, it gets re-enabled once a second, potentially interfering with NUMA placement of other tasks. By