lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched/fair: check for idle core
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 05:19:53PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 17:08, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 03:24:48PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > I worry it's overkill because prev is always used if it is idle even
> > > > if it is on a node remote to the waker. It cuts off the option of a
> > > > wakee moving to a CPU local to the waker which is not equivalent to the
> > > > original behaviour.
> > >
> > > But it is equal to the original behavior in the idle prev case if you go
> > > back to the runnable load average days...
> > >
> >
> > It is similar but it misses the sync treatment and sd->imbalance_pct part of
> > wake_affine_weight which has unpredictable consequences. The data
> > available is only on the fully utilised case.
>
> In fact It's the same because runnable_load_avg was null when cpu is idle, so
> if prev_cpu was idle, we were selecting prev_idle
>

Sync wakeups may only consider this_cpu and the load of the waker but
in that case, it was probably selected already by the sync check in
wake_affine_idle which will pass except when the domain is overloaded.
Fair enough, I'll withdraw any concerns. It could have done with a
comment :/

--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-21 19:01    [W:0.087 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site