Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

Hi, On 22/08/17 14:53, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > Hi, > > On 18/08/17 17:21, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > It would be better to try to check other siblings first if > > > SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration. > > >

Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

Hi, On 22/08/17 14:53, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > Hi, > > On 18/08/17 17:21, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > It would be better to try to check other siblings first if > > > SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration. > > >

Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 02:53:25PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > Hi, > > On 18/08/17 17:21, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > It would be better to try to check other siblings first if > > > SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks -

Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 02:53:25PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > Hi, > > On 18/08/17 17:21, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > It would be better to try to check other siblings first if > > > SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks -

Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 03:07:57PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > Consider a 4 core, SMT2 system: > > > > LLC [0 - 7] > > > > SMT [0,1] [2,3] [4,5] [6,7] > > > > If we do a wake-up on CPU0, we'll find CPU1, mark that as fallback, > > continue up the domain tree, exclude 0,1 from

Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 03:07:57PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > Consider a 4 core, SMT2 system: > > > > LLC [0 - 7] > > > > SMT [0,1] [2,3] [4,5] [6,7] > > > > If we do a wake-up on CPU0, we'll find CPU1, mark that as fallback, > > continue up the domain tree, exclude 0,1 from

Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi, > On 18/08/17 17:21, Byungchul Park wrote: > > It would be better to try to check other siblings first if > > SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration. > > > > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park

Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi, > On 18/08/17 17:21, Byungchul Park wrote: > > It would be better to try to check other siblings first if > > SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration. > > > > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park > > Mmm, this looks

Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

On 21/08/17 15:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > > Also, I'm not sure what Peter meant with > > > > "But still this isn't quite right, because when we consider this for SMT > > (as was the intent here) we'll happily occupy a full sibling

Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

On 21/08/17 15:56, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > > Also, I'm not sure what Peter meant with > > > > "But still this isn't quite right, because when we consider this for SMT > > (as was the intent here) we'll happily occupy a full sibling

Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > Also, I'm not sure what Peter meant with > > "But still this isn't quite right, because when we consider this for SMT > (as was the intent here) we'll happily occupy a full sibling core over > finding an empty one." Consider a 4

Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > Also, I'm not sure what Peter meant with > > "But still this isn't quite right, because when we consider this for SMT > (as was the intent here) we'll happily occupy a full sibling core over > finding an empty one." Consider a 4

Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

Hi, On 18/08/17 17:21, Byungchul Park wrote: > It would be better to try to check other siblings first if > SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration. > > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park Mmm, this looks like Peter's proposed patch, maybe add (at least) a

Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

Hi, On 18/08/17 17:21, Byungchul Park wrote: > It would be better to try to check other siblings first if > SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration. > > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park Mmm, this looks like Peter's proposed patch, maybe add (at least) a Suggested-by: him ?

[PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

It would be better to try to check other siblings first if SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration. Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park --- kernel/sched/deadline.c | 55 ++--- 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 3

[PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq()

It would be better to try to check other siblings first if SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration. Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park --- kernel/sched/deadline.c | 55 ++--- 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git