[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4a457db8-428f-52ac-a864-cd3d2fda705a@bytedance.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:51:42 +0800
From: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] introduce sched-idle balancing
On 2/24/22 11:29 PM, Vincent Guittot Wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 at 16:20, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 11:43:56PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
>>> Current load balancing is mainly based on cpu capacity
>>> and task util, which makes sense in the POV of overall
>>> throughput. While there still might be some improvement
>>> can be done by reducing number of overloaded cfs rqs if
>>> sched-idle or idle rq exists.
>>
>> I'm much confused, there is an explicit new-idle balancer and a periodic
>> idle balancer already there.
>
> I agree, You failed to explain why newly_idle and periodic idle load
> balance are not enough and we need this new one
Hi Vincent, sorry for not giving a clearer explanation. Please check
my previous email replying to Peter, thanks.
Best Regards,
Abel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists