[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200106163303.GC3466@techsingularity.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 16:33:03 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, pauld@...hat.com,
valentin.schneider@....com, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
quentin.perret@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
Morten.Rasmussen@....com, hdanton@...a.com, parth@...ux.ibm.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched, fair: Allow a small load imbalance between low
utilisation SD_NUMA domains v3
On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 10:47:18AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > + imbalance_adj = (100 / (env->sd->imbalance_pct
> > - 100)) - 1;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Allow small imbalances when the busiest
> > group has
> > + * low utilisation.
> > + */
> > + imbalance_max = imbalance_adj << 1;
> > + if (busiest->sum_nr_running < imbalance_max)
> > + env->imbalance -= min(env->imbalance,
> > imbalance_adj);
> > + }
> > +
>
> Wait, so imbalance_max is a function only of
> env->sd->imbalance_pct, and it gets compared
> against busiest->sum_nr_running, which is related
> to the number of CPUs in the node?
>
It's not directly related to the number of CPUs in the node. Are you
thinking of busiest->group_weight?
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists