[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190719130624.GK3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 15:06:24 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
quentin.perret@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
Morten.Rasmussen@....com, pauld@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] sched/fair: rework load_balance
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 09:58:23AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> @@ -7887,7 +7908,7 @@ static inline int sg_imbalanced(struct sched_group *group)
> static inline bool
> group_has_capacity(struct lb_env *env, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs)
> {
> - if (sgs->sum_h_nr_running < sgs->group_weight)
> + if (sgs->sum_nr_running < sgs->group_weight)
> return true;
>
> if ((sgs->group_capacity * 100) >
> @@ -7908,7 +7929,7 @@ group_has_capacity(struct lb_env *env, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs)
> static inline bool
> group_is_overloaded(struct lb_env *env, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs)
> {
> - if (sgs->sum_h_nr_running <= sgs->group_weight)
> + if (sgs->sum_nr_running <= sgs->group_weight)
> return false;
>
> if ((sgs->group_capacity * 100) <
I suspect this is a change you can pull out into a separate patch after
the big change. Yes it makes sense to account the other class' task
presence, but I don't think it is strictly required to be in this patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists