[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e997556f-8adc-2165-2e76-ce9b0229c977@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 18:37:19 +0000
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: pauld@...hat.com, parth@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/4] sched/fair: Take into runnable_avg to classify group
On 2/13/20 6:32 PM, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>> @@ -7911,6 +7912,10 @@ group_has_capacity(unsigned int imbalance_pct, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs)
>> if (sgs->sum_nr_running < sgs->group_weight)
>> return true;
>>
>> + if ((sgs->group_capacity * imbalance_pct) <
>> + (sgs->group_runnable * 100))
>> + return false;
>> +
>
> I haven't stared long enough at patch 2, but I'll ask anyway - with this new
> condition, do we still need the next one (based on util)? AIUI
> group_runnable is >= group_util, so if group_runnable is within the allowed
> margin then group_util has to be as well.
>
Hmph, actually util_est breaks the runnable >= util assumption I think...
>> if ((sgs->group_capacity * 100) >
>> (sgs->group_util * imbalance_pct))
>> return true;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists