public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Uladzislau 2 Rezki <uladzislau2.rezki@sonymobile.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:22:18 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170209122218.GE6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1486543409-11493-3-git-send-email-urezki@gmail.com>

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:43:29AM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> From: Uladzislau 2 Rezki <uladzislau2.rezki@sonymobile.com>
> 
> A load balancer calculates imbalance factor for particular shed
> domain and tries to steal up the prescribed amount of weighted load.
> However, a small imbalance factor would sometimes prevent us from
> stealing any tasks at all. When a CPU is newly idle, it should
> steal first task which passes a migration criteria.
> 

So ideally we'd reduce the number of special cases instead of increase
them. Does this patch make an actual difference, if so how much and with
what workload?

Also, I suppose that if we finally manage to parameterize the whole
load-balancing to act on: nr_running/util/load depending on the domain
this all naturally falls into place.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-02-09 12:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-08  8:43 [RFC,v2 1/3] sched: set loop_max after rq lock is taken Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-08  8:43 ` [RFC,v2 2/3] sched: set number of iterations to h_nr_running Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-09 12:20   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-09 18:59     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-08  8:43 ` [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-08  9:19   ` Mike Galbraith
2017-02-09 10:12     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-09 12:22   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2017-02-09 18:54     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-13 13:51       ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-02-13 17:17         ` Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-14 18:28           ` Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-15 18:58             ` Dietmar Eggemann
2017-02-16 11:20               ` Uladzislau Rezki
2017-03-08 15:35                 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2017-02-09 12:14 ` [RFC,v2 1/3] sched: set loop_max after rq lock is taken Peter Zijlstra

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=20170209122218.GE6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=uladzislau2.rezki@sonymobile.com \
    --cc=urezki@gmail.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