[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160823141341.GP10153@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:13:41 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/10] Optimize sched avgs computation and implement
flat util hierarchy
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 03:28:19PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> I still wonder if using a flat util hierarchy is the right solution to
> solve this problem with utilization and task group. I have noticed
> exact same issues with load that generates weird task placement
> decision and i think that we should probably try to solve both wrong
> behavior with same mechanism. but this is not possible with flat
> hierarchy for load
>
> Let me take an example.
> TA is a always running task on CPU1 in group /root/level1/
> TB wakes up on CPU0 and moves TA into group /root/level2/
> Even if TA stays on CPU1, runnable_load_avg of CPU1 root cfs rq will become 0.
Because while we migrate the load_avg on /root/level2, we do not
propagate the load_avg up the hierarchy?
And always propagating everyrthing up will indeed also fix the
utilization issue.
Of course, doing that propagation has its costs..
Didn't you post a patch doing just this a while ago?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists