[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtAMEdcpX=h1sNaM-S9R7xB7ZPp5UZGdm_8pBWMYzeB+VA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 20:47:12 +0200
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 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 Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 19:55, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 09:33:35AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > + if (busiest->group_type == group_asym_packing) {
> > + /*
> > + * In case of asym capacity, we will try to migrate all load to
> > + * the preferred CPU.
> > + */
> > + env->balance_type = migrate_load;
> > env->imbalance = busiest->group_load;
> > return;
> > }
>
> I was a bit surprised with this; I sorta expected a migrate_task,1 here.
I have just kept current mechanism
>
> The asym_packing thing has always been a nr_running issue to me. If
> there is something to run, we should run on as many siblings/cores as
> possible, but preferably the 'highest' ranked siblings/cores.
I can probably set the number of running task to migrate instead of the load
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists