From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755306AbbBTQ05 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:26:57 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:58982 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755081AbbBTQ04 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:26:56 -0500
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 17:26:41 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v9 10/10] sched: move cfs task on a CPU with
 higher capacity
Message-ID: <20150220162641.GS5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1421316570-23097-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <1421316570-23097-11-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20150220112743.GN5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKfTPtCUppWUV_V=P1PCbF-cMjbAyVKoDwqAfdxvZQaHN6X6mw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtCUppWUV_V=P1PCbF-cMjbAyVKoDwqAfdxvZQaHN6X6mw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 02:54:09PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:

> >>       if (rq->nr_running >= 2)
> >> +             return true;
> >
> > So this,

> >> +     sd = rcu_dereference(rq->sd);
> >> +     if (sd) {
> >> +             if ((rq->cfs.h_nr_running >= 1) &&
> >> +                             check_cpu_capacity(rq, sd)) {
> >> +                     kick = true;
> >> +                     goto unlock;
> >> +             }
> >> +     }
> >
> > vs this: how would we ever get here?
> >
> > If h_nr_running > 1, must then not nr_running > 1 as well?
> 
> you're right,
> but the test above can trig a kick with h_nr_running == 1 whereas the
> other tests may not

Duh, clearly I cannot read today.