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 S938652AbcHJSp7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 10 Aug 2016 14:45:59 -0400
Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:20680 "EHLO mga14.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S936533AbcHJSpy (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 10 Aug 2016 14:45:54 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,498,1464678000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="862863887"
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 07:19:55 +0800
From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
        Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched,fair: Fix PELT integrity for new tasks
Message-ID: <20160809231955.GA3273@intel.com>
References: <CAKfTPtAUtteP0V5-1u2n0YFDdFbZfwSqigHjOfM32Vbw3iAPbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160617142814.GT30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160617160239.GL30927@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160617161831.GM30927@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <5767D51F.3080600@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtBB3jyOWrv8=+S2zRXD+pSXPWgoZ3aJUscE5yJDpkDmzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5768027E.1090408@arm.com>
 <20160621084119.GN30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160621045139.GE19934@intel.com>
 <20160624130324.GZ30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160624130324.GZ30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 03:03:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Task's last_update_time means this task is detached from fair queue. This
> > (re)definition is by all means much better than migrating. No?
> 
> I would maybe redefine it as an up-to-date marker for a migration across
> a clock discontinuity. Both CPU migration and group movement suffer from
> this, albeit for different reasons.
> 
> In the CPU migration case we simply cannot tell time by our refusal to
> acquire the old rq lock. So we age to the last time we 'know' and then
> mark it up-to-date.
> 
> For the cgroup move the timelines simply _are_ discontinuous. So we have
> to mark it up-to-date after we update it to the instant of detach, such
> that when we attach it to the new group we don't try to age it across
> the time difference.

Got it. I'm glad to see you worked out all these.
 
It's like I am replying to an email in the last century, sorry, but I was
distracted for many other things.