Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:34:31 +0000 | From | Qais Yousef <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 11/11] sched/fair: rework find_idlest_group |
| |
On 11/20/19 17:53, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 14:21, Vincent Guittot > <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Qais, > > > > On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 12:58, Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Vincent > > > > > > On 10/18/19 15:26, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > > The slow wake up path computes per sched_group statisics to select the > > > > idlest group, which is quite similar to what load_balance() is doing > > > > for selecting busiest group. Rework find_idlest_group() to classify the > > > > sched_group and select the idlest one following the same steps as > > > > load_balance(). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> > > > > --- > > > > > > LTP test has caught a regression in perf_event_open02 test on linux-next and I > > > bisected it to this patch. > > > > > > That is checking out next-20191119 tag and reverting this patch on top the test > > > passes. Without the revert the test fails. > > I haven't tried linux-next yet but LTP test is passed with > tip/sched/core, which includes this patch, on hikey960 which is arm64 > too. > > Have you tried tip/sched/core on your juno ? this could help to > understand if it's only for juno or if this patch interact with > another branch merged in linux next
Okay will give it a go. But out of curiosity, what is the output of your run?
While bisecting on linux-next I noticed that at some point the test was passing but all the read values were 0. At some point I started seeing none-zero values.
-- Qais Yousef
| |