[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtAv-9HuX5xqEdMamo=YtyryA+K2nHBBG5XX7oyNybnUVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 18:37:22 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] sched/fair: Check a task has a fitting cpu when
updating misfit
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 17:15, Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
>
> On 02/20/24 15:59, Qais Yousef wrote:
>
> > I realized that I wanted to also add a new patch to not double balance_interval
> > for misfit failures. I think you indicated that seems the right thing to do?
>
> I think this should do it?
yes it should do it
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 70ffbb1aa15c..b12b7de495d0 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -11552,8 +11552,13 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
> * repeatedly reach this code, which would lead to balance_interval
> * skyrocketing in a short amount of time. Skip the balance_interval
> * increase logic to avoid that.
> + *
> + * Similarly misfit migration which is not necessarily an indication of
> + * the system being busy and requires lb to backoff to let it settle
> + * down.
> */
> - if (env.idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE)
> + if (env.idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE ||
> + env.migration_type == migrate_misfit)
> goto out;
>
> /* tune up the balancing interval */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists