[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140725160549.GD6758@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 18:05:49 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mikey@...ling.org, mingo@...nel.org,
pjt@...gle.com, jhladky@...hat.com, ktkhai@...allels.com,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: make update_sd_pick_busiest return true on a
busier sd
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:45:02AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > So for !ASYM the code is effectively:
> >
> > return sgs->avg_load > sds->busiest_stat.avg_load;
> >
> > I'd like to at least add a clause that makes overloaded groups
> > prioritized over !overloaded groups.
> >
> > Also, like we found earlier, calculate_imbalance() relies on the
> > sum_nr_running > group_capacity_factor thing, which you've just
> > 'wrecked', so we'd need an update to that part too.
>
> I guess that would mean update_sd_pick_busiest would look like
> this for the !ASYM case:
>
> 1) remembering whether busiest is overloaded
>
> 2) if (sgs->busiest_stat.overloaded && !sgs->overloaded)
> return false;
>
> 3) if (sgs->avg_load > sds->busiest_stat.avg_load)
> return true;
Right. So the situation I was worried about is where we have say 8 +nice
tasks in one group and 2 -nice in another. So the group with 2 tasks can
actually be 'heavier' but not fully utilized. In that case we want to
pull tasks from the lighter but overloaded group.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists