[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201106170227.GG3371@techsingularity.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 17:02:27 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>, Peter Puhov <peter.puhov@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Robert Foley <robert.foley@...aro.org>,
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>,
Jirka Hladky <jhladky@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] sched/fair: update_pick_idlest() Select group with
lowest group_util when idle_cpus are equal
On Fri, Nov 06, 2020 at 05:06:59PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > While it was clear-cut for 5.9, it's less clear-cut for 5.10-rc2 although
> > > > the gitsource shows some severe differences depending on the machine that
> > > > is worth being extremely cautious about. I would still prefer a revert
> > > > but I'm also extremely biased and I know there are other patches in the
> > >
> > > This one from Julia can also impact
> > >
> >
> > Which one? I'm guessing "[PATCH v2] sched/fair: check for idle core"
>
> Yes, Sorry I sent my answer before adding the link
>
Grand, that's added to the mix on top to see how both patches measure up
versus a revert. No guarantee I'll have full results by Monday. As usual,
the test grid is loaded up to the eyeballs.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists