[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52119C6B.1090009@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 09:47:47 +0530
From: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched, fair: Make group power more consitent
Hi Peter,
On 08/16/2013 03:42 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
I have a few comments and clarification to seek.
1. How are you ensuring from this patch that sgs->group_power does not
change over the course of load balancing?
The only path to update_group_power() where sg->sgp->power gets
updated, is from update_sg_lb_stats(). You are updating sgs->group_power
in update_sg_lb_stats(). Any change to group->sgp->power will get
reflected in sgs->group_power as well right?
2. This point is aside from your patch. In the current implementation,
each time the cpu power gets updated in update_cpu_power(), should not
the power of the sched_groups comprising of that cpu also get updated?
Why wait till the load balancing is done at the sched_domain level of
that group, to update its group power?
Regards
Preeti U Murthy
--
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