[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <968bf17a-0926-0b21-031b-bca869e41888@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 16:39:59 +0200
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>,
Kajetan Puchalski <kajetan.puchalski@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@...gle.com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@...cinc.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] sched/fair, cpufreq: Introduce 'runnable boosting'
On 12/05/2023 13:32, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 12:10:29PM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
[...]
>> @@ -10561,7 +10568,7 @@ static struct rq *find_busiest_queue(struct lb_env *env,
>> break;
>>
>> case migrate_util:
>> - util = cpu_util_cfs(i);
>> + util = cpu_util_cfs(i, 1);
>>
>> /*
>> * Don't try to pull utilization from a CPU with one
>
> When you move that comment from cpu_util_cfs() to cpu_util() please also
> add a paragraph about why boost=1 and why these locations, because I'm
> sure we're going to be asking ouselves that at some point.
Will do.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists