[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210203151400.ommltjjyuok4yj5e@e107158-lin>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2021 15:14:00 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] sched/fair: misfit task load-balance tweaks
On 01/28/21 18:31, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Here is this year's series of misfit changes. On the menu:
>
> o Patch 1 is an independent active balance cleanup
> o Patch 2 adds some more sched_asym_cpucapacity static branches
> o Patch 3 introduces yet another margin for capacity to capacity
> comparisons
> o Patches 4-6 build on top of patch 3 and change capacity comparisons
> throughout misfit load balancing
> o Patches 7-8 fix some extra misfit issues I've been seeing on "real"
> workloads.
>
> IMO the somewhat controversial bit is patch 3, because it attempts to solve
> margin issues by... Adding another margin. This does solve issues on
> existing platforms (e.g. Pixel4), but we'll be back to square one the day
> some "clever" folks spin a platform with two different CPU capacities less than
> 5% apart.
One more margin is a cause of apprehension to me. But in this case I think it
is the appropriate thing to do now. I can't think of a scenario where this
could hurt.
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists