[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140715093234.GA8700@e103034-lin>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:32:34 +0100
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <Dietmar.Eggemann@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/12] Revert "sched: Put rq's sched_avg under
CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED"
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:27:19AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 11 July 2014 18:13, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > In this example using rq->avg leads to imbalance whereas unweighted load
> > would not. Correct me if I missed anything.
>
> You just miss to take into account how the imbalance is computed
I don't think so. I'm aware that the imbalance is calculated based on
the runnable_load_avg of the cpus. But if you pick the wrong cpus to
compare to begin with, it doesn't matter.
Morten
--
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