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
prev parent 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