From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yuyang Du Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 13/16 v3] Intercept wakeup/fork/exec load balancing Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 07:46:59 +0800 Message-ID: <20140603234659.GA24315@intel.com> References: <1401431772-14320-1-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com> <1401431772-14320-14-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com> <20140603122702.GM30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:34532 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755250AbaFDHvF (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jun 2014 03:51:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140603122702.GM30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: mingo@redhat.com, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com, len.brown@intel.com, alan.cox@intel.com, mark.gross@intel.com, pjt@google.com, bsegall@google.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, rajeev.d.muralidhar@intel.com, vishwesh.m.rudramuni@intel.com, nicole.chalhoub@intel.com, ajaya.durg@intel.com, harinarayanan.seshadri@intel.com, jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 02:27:02PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 02:36:09PM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > > We intercept load balancing to contain the load and load balancing in > > the consolidated CPUs according to our consolidating mechanism. > > > > In wakeup/fork/exec load balaning, when to find the idlest sched_group, > > we first try to find the consolidated group > > Anything with intercept in is a complete non-starter. You still fully > duplicate the logic. > > You really didn't get anything I said, did you? > > Please as to go back to square 1 and read again. > > So take a step back and try and explain what and why you're doing > things, also try and look at what other people are doing. If I see > another patch from you within two weeks I'll simply delete it, there's > no way you can read up and fix everything in such a short time. Hi Peter, Thanks for your reply, it hurts though, :( I was concerned about what you said back, which should be this one: PeterZ: Fourthly, I'm _never_ going to merge anything that hijacks the load balancer and does some random other thing. There's going to be a single load-balancer full stop. But some explanation to this interception/hijack. It is driven by a sched policy (SD_WORKLOAD_CONSOLIDATION) and the resulting effect of that policy if enabled, or still part of the load balancer. Can't do/call it that way? Thanks, Yuyang