[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <jhjzhcknoq6.mognet@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:34:09 +0000
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: improve spreading of utilization
On Fri, Mar 13 2020, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> My point is that if we prevent this for migrate_util, it would make
>> sense to prevent it for migrate_task, but it's not straightforward since
>
> hmm but we don't want to prevent this active balance for migrate_task
> because of cases like the one you mentioned above.
>
> we might consider to finally select a CPU with only 1 running task
> with migrate_util if there is no other CPU with more than 1 task. But
> this would complexify the code and I don't think it's possible because
> migrate_util is used to pull some utilizations from an overloaded
> group which must have a CPU with a waiting task to be overloaded.
>
OK, so what we may want in the future is a tighter link between
find_busiest_queue() and voluntary_active_balance(). I don't see a neat
way of doing this right now, I'll ponder over it.
Thanks for keeping up with my rambling.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists