[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191030121101.GA172224@google.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 12:11:01 +0000
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched: rt: Make RT capacity aware
On Wednesday 30 Oct 2019 at 09:04:44 (+0100), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> That's the point of my comment, choosing big cores as default and
> always best choice is far from being obvious.
> And this patch changes the default behavior without study of the
> impact apart from stating that this should be ok
The current behaviour is totally bogus on big.LITTLE TBH, and nobody
uses it as-is. Vendors hack RT a lot for that exact reason.
Right now a RT task gets a random CPU, which on big.LITTLE is
effectively equivalent to selecting a random OPP on SMP. And since RT is
all about predicatbility, I'd argue sticking to the big CPUs for
consistency with the frequency selection policy is the only sensible
default.
So +1 from me for Qais' patch :)
Thanks,
Quentin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists