[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10684db8-8ecc-9e1e-743a-fcbe1ac1fa67@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:13:00 +0000
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.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>,
Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/11] sched/fair: rework find_idlest_group
On 25/11/2019 09:59, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> + case group_imbalanced:
>>> + case group_asym_packing:
>>> + /* Those type are not used in the slow wakeup path */
>>> + return NULL;
>>
>> I suppose group_asym_packing could be handled similarly to misfit, right?
>> i.e. make the group type group_asym_packing if
>>
>> !sched_asym_prefer(sg.asym_prefer_cpu, local.asym_prefer_cpu)
>
> Unlike group_misfit_task that was somehow already taken into account
> through the comparison of spare capacity, group_asym_packing was not
> considered at all in find_idlest_group so I prefer to stay
> conservative and wait for users of asym_packing to come with a need
> before adding this new mechanism.
>
Right, makes sense.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists