[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141009121643.GQ4750@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 14:16:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Morten.Rasmussen@....com,
kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, riel@...hat.com,
efault@....de, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, pjt@...gle.com, bsegall@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/7] sched: replace capacity_factor by usage
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:13:36PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> +static inline bool
> +group_has_capacity(struct lb_env *env, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs)
> {
> + if ((sgs->group_capacity * 100) >
> + (sgs->group_usage * env->sd->imbalance_pct))
> + return true;
Why the imb_pct there? We're looking for 100% utilization, not 130 or
whatnot, right?
> + if (sgs->sum_nr_running < sgs->group_weight)
> + return true;
With the code as it stands, this is the cheaper test (no mults) so why
is it second?
> + return false;
> +}
>
> +static inline bool
> +group_is_overloaded(struct lb_env *env, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs)
> +{
> + if (sgs->sum_nr_running <= sgs->group_weight)
> + return false;
> +
> + if ((sgs->group_capacity * 100) <
> + (sgs->group_usage * env->sd->imbalance_pct))
> + return true;
>
> + return false;
> }
Same thing here wrt imb_pct
--
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