From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1EC4C48BDF for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 16:40:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B303F61874 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 16:40:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230380AbhFOQmI (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:42:08 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:40554 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230081AbhFOQmA (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jun 2021 12:42:00 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D788413A1; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:39:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e113632-lin (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 583BD3F694; Tue, 15 Jun 2021 09:39:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Valentin Schneider To: Vincent Guittot Cc: Yafang Shao , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Juri Lelli , Dietmar Eggemann , Steven Rostedt , Ben Segall , Mel Gorman , Daniel Bristot de Oliveira , linux-kernel Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched, fair: try to prevent migration thread from preempting non-cfs task In-Reply-To: References: <20210615121551.31138-1-laoar.shao@gmail.com> <87mtrrb2jw.mognet@arm.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:39:52 +0100 Message-ID: <87im2faxpj.mognet@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 15/06/21 17:45, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 16:55, Valentin Schneider > wrote: >> This can be summarized as in the below, no? >> >> /* >> * Don't cause a higher-than-CFS task to be preempted by >> * the CPU stopper. >> */ > > IMO, it's worth keeping the explanation that we are there because: > - a CFS task that was running during the 1st step : if > (busiest->nr_running > 1) { ... > so we didn't pull the task > - but it has been preempted while lb was deciding if it needs an > active load balance > > so maybe something like: > /* > * Don't kick the active_load_balance_cpu_stop, > * if the CFS task has been preempted by higher > * priority task in the meantime. > */ > Ack