[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aefdb891-8567-4ebc-4308-336159feb305@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 12:44:40 +0100
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@...eaurora.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] sched/fair: Attempt misfit active balance when
migration_type != migrate_misfit
On 03/02/2021 19:43, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 03/02/21 15:16, Qais Yousef wrote:
>> On 01/28/21 18:31, Valentin Schneider wrote:
>>> Giving group_misfit_task a higher group_classify() priority than
>>> group_imbalance doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Instead, make
>>> need_active_balance() return true for any migration_type when the
>>
>> s/need_active_balance()/voluntary_active_balance()/?
>>
>>> destination CPU is idle and the source CPU has a misfit task.
>>>
>>> While at it, add an sd_has_asym_cpucapacity() guard in
>>> need_active_balance().
>>
>> ditto.
>>
>
> Myes, clearly this has been left to ferment for too long!
Wasn't the migrate_misfit condition moved from
voluntary_active_balance() into need_active_balance() by commit
("sched/fair: Reduce cases for active balance")?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists