[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtD2_ZHUv5Kz3R2qV33RxrGNC=y+7-4jCdvj9Deo=7A77Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 09:44:47 +0200
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] sched/fair: rework load_balance
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 03:13, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2019-09-19 at 09:33 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >
> > Also the load balance decisions have been consolidated in the 3
> > functions
> > below after removing the few bypasses and hacks of the current code:
> > - update_sd_pick_busiest() select the busiest sched_group.
> > - find_busiest_group() checks if there is an imbalance between local
> > and
> > busiest group.
> > - calculate_imbalance() decides what have to be moved.
>
> I really like the direction this series is going.
Thanks
>
> However, I suppose I should run these patches for
> a few days with some of our test workloads before
> I send out an ack for this patch :)
Yes more tests on different platform are welcome
>
> --
> All Rights Reversed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists