[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <514ABA19.1080807@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:43:21 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, efault@....de,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de,
pjt@...gle.com, namhyung@...nel.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [patch v5 14/15] sched: power aware load balance
On 03/20/2013 12:57 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Neither core will be able to pull the task from the other to consolidate
> the load because the rq->util of t2 and t4, on which no process is
> running, continue to show some number even though they degrade with time
> and sgs->utils accounts for them. Therefore,
> for core1 and core2, the sgs->utils will be slightly above 100 and the
> above condition will fail, thus failing them as candidates for
> group_leader,since threshold_util will be 200.
Thanks for note, Preeti!
Did you find some real issue in some platform?
In theory, a totally idle cpu has a zero rq->util at least after 3xxms,
and in fact, I find the code works fine on my machines.
--
Thanks
Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists