[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <X/i3TbRRS9chYb3l@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 20:49:33 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiang Biao <benbjiang@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] sched/fair: Fix select_idle_cpu()s cost
accounting
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 04:10:51PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Another thing that worries me, is that we use the avg_idle of the
> local cpu, which is obviously not idle otherwise it would have been
> selected, to decide how much time we should spend on looking for
> another idle CPU. I'm not sure that's the right metrics to use
> especially with a possibly stalled value.
The thinking was that if this CPU has little idle time, this CPU should
not spend a lot of time searching...
That is; if we spend more time looking for places to run, than we have
idle time, we're loosing cycles we could've ran (supposedly useful) work.
The only counter argument is tail latency.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists