[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <95f22502-16e6-555c-fb61-e1a9e88f1163@arm.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2018 13:58:13 +0200
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net
Cc: juri.lelli@...hat.com, Morten.Rasmussen@....com,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, valentin.schneider@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 v4] sched/pelt: Move pelt related code in a dedicated
file
On 03/16/2018 12:25 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> We want to track rt_rq's utilization as a part of the estimation of the
> whole rq's utilization. This is necessary because rt tasks can steal
> utilization to cfs tasks and make them lighter than they are.
> As we want to use the same load tracking mecanism for both and prevent
> useless dependency between cfs and rt code, pelt code is moved in a
> dedicated file.
This would mean that we introduce function calls into the cfs scheduler
fast-path, something we avoided so far (e.g. the cpu and frequency
invariance hooks). Are we OK with that?
Quentin mentioned this already during v3 review back in December.
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists