[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20231115122027.GZ8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:20:27 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Cruz Zhao <CruzZhao@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: introduce core_vruntime and
core_min_vruntime
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:33:40PM +0800, Cruz Zhao wrote:
> To compare the priority of sched_entity from different cpus of a core,
> we introduce core_vruntime to struct sched_entity and core_min_vruntime
> to struct cfs_rq.
>
> cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime records the min vruntime of the cfs_rqs
> of the same task_group among the core, and se->core_vruntime is the
> vruntime relative to se->cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime.
But that makes absolutely no sense. vruntime of different RQs can
advance at wildly different rates. Not to mention there's this random
offset between them.
No, this cannot be.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists