From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Cruz Zhao <CruzZhao@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, joel@joelfernandes.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: introduce core_vruntime and core_min_vruntime
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:20:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231115122027.GZ8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231115113341.13261-4-CruzZhao@linux.alibaba.com>
On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 07:33:40PM +0800, Cruz Zhao wrote:
> To compare the priority of sched_entity from different cpus of a core,
> we introduce core_vruntime to struct sched_entity and core_min_vruntime
> to struct cfs_rq.
>
> cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime records the min vruntime of the cfs_rqs
> of the same task_group among the core, and se->core_vruntime is the
> vruntime relative to se->cfs_rq->core->core_min_vruntime.
But that makes absolutely no sense. vruntime of different RQs can
advance at wildly different rates. Not to mention there's this random
offset between them.
No, this cannot be.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-15 12:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-15 11:33 [PATCH 0/4] sched/core: fix cfs_prio_less Cruz Zhao
2023-11-15 11:33 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/core: introduce core_id to struct rq Cruz Zhao
2023-11-15 11:33 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched/core: introduce core to struct cfs_rq Cruz Zhao
2023-11-15 20:08 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-15 20:19 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-18 10:48 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-15 11:33 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/fair: introduce core_vruntime and core_min_vruntime Cruz Zhao
2023-11-15 12:20 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-11-15 13:42 ` cruzzhao
2023-11-15 15:22 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-11-16 6:38 ` cruzzhao
2023-11-17 2:48 ` cruzzhao
2023-11-15 20:51 ` kernel test robot
2023-11-15 11:33 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/core: fix cfs_prio_less Cruz Zhao
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=20231115122027.GZ8262@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=CruzZhao@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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