From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752352AbcFFH4E (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2016 03:56:04 -0400 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:17564 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751768AbcFFH4C (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jun 2016 03:56:02 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,426,1459839600"; d="scan'208";a="822438922" Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 07:58:54 +0800 From: Yuyang Du To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Vincent Guittot , mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pjt@google.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, bsegall@google.com, Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] sched: reflect sched_entity movement into task_group's utilization Message-ID: <20160605235854.GC8105@intel.com> References: <1464080252-17209-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20160601125407.GA28447@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160601125407.GA28447@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 02:54:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:57:32AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > Ensure that the changes of the utilization of a sched_entity will be > > reflected in the task_group hierarchy. > > > > This patch tries another way than the flat utilization hierarchy proposal > > to ensure the changes will be propagated down to the root cfs. > > Which would be: > > lkml.kernel.org/r/1460327765-18024-5-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com > > Right? Yuyang, there were some issues with the patches leading up to > that proposal, were you going to update the flat util thing without > those patches or can you find yourself in Vince's patches? Sure. I am rebasing my proposal patches, will send out later. > (just so I can get a picture of what all patches to look at when > reviewing)