public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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,
	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
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/12 v1] A new CPU load metric for power-efficient scheduler: CPU ConCurrency
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 03:16:56 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140518191656.GB18818@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140515145042.GO30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

> So I should have just deleted all patches, for none of them has a
> changelog.
> 

It is my bad to not make changelogs in patches. The v2 has them, but I should
have made them since always.

> So all this cc crap only hooks into and modifies fair.c behaviour. There
> is absolutely no reason it should live anywhere else except fair.c
> 
> Secondly, the very last thing we need is more CONFIG_ goo, and you
> sprinkle #ifdef around like it was gold dust.
> 

Aggreed. I will change these.

> Thirdly, wth is wrong with the current per-task runtime accounting and
> why can't you extend/adapt that instead of duplicating the lot.
> 

Sure. As you and Vincent said, CC will take a ride of current tracking codes
instead of duplicating.

> 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.
> 
> Many people have expressed interest in a packing balancer (vs the
> spreading we currently default to). Some have even done patches.
> At the same time it seems very difficult to agree on _when_ packing
> makes sense. That said, when we do packing we should do it driven by the
> topology and policy, not by some compile time option.
>

I will make "Workload Consolidation" driven by topology and policy,
essentially it is already so, but sure the codes are not completely clean in
that regard.

> Lastly, if you'd done your homework and actually read some of the
> threads on the subject from say the past two years, you'd know pretty
> much all that already.
> 
> I'm not here to endlessly repeat myself and waste time staring at
> unchangelogged patches.
> 

This will not happen again.

> Anyway, there might or might not be useful ideas in there.. but its very
> hard to tell one way or another.

I think the above is mostly about "amenability" to scheduler codes.
Apparently, I am not doing it right. Will send another version to
make it less hard. Thanks for your time.

Yuyang

      reply	other threads:[~2014-05-19  3:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-05  0:02 [RFC PATCH 00/12 v1] A new CPU load metric for power-efficient scheduler: CPU ConCurrency Yuyang Du
2014-05-05  0:02 ` [RFC PATCH 01/12 v1] CONFIG for " Yuyang Du
2014-05-05  0:02 ` [RFC PATCH 02/12 v1] Init " Yuyang Du
2014-05-05  0:02 ` [RFC PATCH 03/12 v1] CPU ConCurrency calculation Yuyang Du
2014-05-05  0:02 ` [RFC PATCH 04/12 v1] CPU ConCurrency collecting in: Yuyang Du
2014-05-05  0:02 ` [RFC PATCH 05/12 v1] CONFIG for Workload Consolidation Yuyang Du
2014-05-05  0:02 ` [RFC PATCH 06/12 v1] Attach CPU topology Yuyang Du
2014-05-05  0:02 ` [RFC PATCH 07/12 v1] CPU ConCurrency API for Workload Consolidation Yuyang Du
2014-05-05  0:02 ` [RFC PATCH 08/12 v1] Intercept wakeup/fork/exec balance Yuyang Du
2014-05-05  0:02 ` [RFC PATCH 09/12 v1] Intercept idle balance Yuyang Du
2014-05-05  0:02 ` [RFC PATCH 10/12 v1] Intercept periodic nohz " Yuyang Du
2014-05-05  0:02 ` [RFC PATCH 11/12 v1] Intercept periodic load balance Yuyang Du
2014-05-05  0:02 ` [RFC PATCH 12/12 v1] Intercept RT provocatively Yuyang Du
2014-05-05  9:37 ` [RFC PATCH 00/12 v1] A new CPU load metric for power-efficient scheduler: CPU ConCurrency Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-06 18:46   ` Yuyang Du
2014-05-15 14:50     ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-18 19:16       ` Yuyang Du [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20140518191656.GB18818@intel.com \
    --to=yuyang.du@intel.com \
    --cc=ajaya.durg@intel.com \
    --cc=alan.cox@intel.com \
    --cc=arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com \
    --cc=harinarayanan.seshadri@intel.com \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.gross@intel.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=nicole.chalhoub@intel.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=rajeev.d.muralidhar@intel.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vishwesh.m.rudramuni@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox