[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFpoUr1AO_qStNOYrFWGnFfc=uSFrXSYD8A5cQ8h0t2pioQzDA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 19:52:34 +0100
From: Odin Ugedal <odin@...d.al>
To: Tao Zhou <tao.zhou@...ux.dev>
Cc: Odin Ugedal <odin@...d.al>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Use rq->lock when checking cfs_rq list presence
Hi,
tir. 12. okt. 2021 kl. 19:31 skrev Tao Zhou <tao.zhou@...ux.dev>:
>
> Er.. this is considered specific to this fix I think. Normal unthrottle(not
> race with delete, avg maybe used in after) also need the normal avg decay.
Yeah, it was more meant as a way to express my idea, should probably have
said that more explicitly. It would essentially be a revert of a7b359fc6a37
("sched/fair: Correctly insert cfs_rq's to list on unthrottle"),
while "temporary" fixing the problem it fixed, by removing the load from the tg.
But yeah, it would still need to decay the load properly to _actually_ be fully
correct and work as it does today. But in most cases nr_running>0 on unthrottle,
but yeah, it is definitely not always the case.
Thanks
Odin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists