[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2b3a903f-fbb6-cc0e-8a5d-e3329e1276c7@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 16:46:53 +0100
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rohit Jain <rohit.k.jain@...cle.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
steven.sistare@...cle.com, dhaval.giani@...cle.com,
joelaf@...gle.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
morten.rasmussen@....com, eas-dev@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] sched/fair: consider RT/IRQ pressure in
select_idle_sibling
On 02/09/2018 01:53 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 03:27:09PM -0800, Rohit Jain wrote:
[...]
>> @@ -6173,8 +6183,15 @@ static int select_idle_cpu(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int t
>> return -1;
>> if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &p->cpus_allowed))
>> continue;
>> + if (idle_cpu(cpu)) {
>> + if (full_capacity(cpu)) {
>> + best_cpu = cpu;
>> + break;
>> + } else if (capacity_of(cpu) > best_cap) {
>> + best_cap = capacity_of(cpu);
>> + best_cpu = cpu;
>> + }
>> + }
>
> No need for the else. And you'll note you're once again inconsistent
> with your previous self.
>
> But here I worry about big.little a wee bit. I think we're allowed big
> and little cores on the same L3 these days, and you can't directly
> compare capacity between them.
>
> Morten / Dietmar, any comments?
Yes, for DynamIQ (big.little successor) systems, those cpus can have
different capacity_orig_of() values already.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists