On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 04:43:05PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 16:40, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 04:23:48PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 15:31, Mel Gorman
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 16:40, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 04:23:48PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 15:31, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:47:48PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > > IIUC, select_idle_core and select_idle_cpu
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 04:23:48PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 15:31, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:47:48PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > IIUC, select_idle_core and select_idle_cpu share the same
> > > > cpumask(select_idle_mask)?
> > > >
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 15:31, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:47:48PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > IIUC, select_idle_core and select_idle_cpu share the same
> > > cpumask(select_idle_mask)?
> > > If the target's sibling is removed from select_idle_mask from
> > >
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:47:48PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > IIUC, select_idle_core and select_idle_cpu share the same
> > cpumask(select_idle_mask)?
> > If the target's sibling is removed from select_idle_mask from
> > select_idle_core(),
> > select_idle_cpu() will lose the chance to
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:17:20PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Vincent Guittot
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 12:30, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > > The intent was that the sibling
On 2020/12/4 21:47, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:40, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>>
>> On 2020/12/4 21:17, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Vincent Guittot
>>> wrote:
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 12:30, Mel Gorman
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 04,
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:40, Li, Aubrey wrote:
>
> On 2020/12/4 21:17, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Vincent Guittot
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 12:30, Mel Gorman
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On 2020/12/4 21:40, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2020/12/4 21:17, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Vincent Guittot
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 12:30, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> The intent was
On 2020/12/4 21:17, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Vincent Guittot
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 12:30, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> The intent was that the sibling might still be an idle
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 14:13, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 12:30, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > The intent was that the sibling might still be an idle candidate. In
> > > > the current draft of the series, I
On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 12:30, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > The intent was that the sibling might still be an idle candidate. In
> > > the current draft of the series, I do not even clear this so that the
> > > SMT sibling is
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:56:36AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > The intent was that the sibling might still be an idle candidate. In
> > the current draft of the series, I do not even clear this so that the
> > SMT sibling is considered as an idle candidate. The reasoning is that if
> > there
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 18:52, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 05:38:03PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 15:11, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > > The target CPU is definitely not idle in both select_idle_core and
> > > select_idle_cpu. For select_idle_core(), the
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 05:38:03PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 15:11, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > The target CPU is definitely not idle in both select_idle_core and
> > select_idle_cpu. For select_idle_core(), the SMT is potentially
> > checked unnecessarily as the core is
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 15:11, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> The target CPU is definitely not idle in both select_idle_core and
> select_idle_cpu. For select_idle_core(), the SMT is potentially
> checked unnecessarily as the core is definitely not idle if the
> target is busy. For select_idle_cpu(), the
The target CPU is definitely not idle in both select_idle_core and
select_idle_cpu. For select_idle_core(), the SMT is potentially
checked unnecessarily as the core is definitely not idle if the
target is busy. For select_idle_cpu(), the first CPU checked is
simply a waste.
Signed-off-by: Mel
17 matches
Mail list logo