Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:00:26 -0500 | From | Phil Auld <> | Subject | Re: [RFC 2/4] sched/numa: replace runnable_load_avg by load_avg |
| |
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 01:46:55PM +0000 Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 09:16:58PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote: > > > - load = task_h_load(env->p); > > > - dst_load = env->dst_stats.load + load; > > > - src_load = env->src_stats.load - load; > > > - > > > /* > > > - * If the improvement from just moving env->p direction is better > > > - * than swapping tasks around, check if a move is possible. > > > + * If dst node has spare capacity, then check if there is an > > > + * imbalance that would be overruled by the load balancer. > > > */ > > > - maymove = !load_too_imbalanced(src_load, dst_load, env); > > > + if (env->dst_stats.node_type == node_has_spare) { > > > + unsigned int imbalance; > > > + int src_running, dst_running; > > > + > > > + /* Would movement cause an imbalance? */ > > > + src_running = env->src_stats.nr_running - 1; > > > + dst_running = env->src_stats.nr_running + 1; > > > + imbalance = max(0, dst_running - src_running); > > > > Have trouble working out why 2 is magician again to make your test data nicer :P > > > > This is calculating what the nr_running would be after the move and > checking if an imbalance exists after the move forcing the load balancer > to intervene.
Isn't that always going to work out to 2?
Cheers, Phil
> > -- > Mel Gorman > SUSE Labs >
--
| |