From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757080Ab3BRI4d (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:56:33 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:28551 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756720Ab3BRI4c (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Feb 2013 03:56:32 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,686,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="288520055" Message-ID: <5121ECD9.3020300@intel.com> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 16:56:57 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joonsoo Kim CC: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, arjan@linux.intel.com, bp@alien8.de, pjt@google.com, namhyung@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com Subject: Re: [patch v5 10/15] sched: packing transitory tasks in wake/exec power balancing References: <1361164062-20111-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1361164062-20111-11-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <20130218084439.GB10009@lge.com> In-Reply-To: <20130218084439.GB10009@lge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 02/18/2013 04:44 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > Hello, Alex. > > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 01:07:37PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote: >> If the waked/execed task is transitory enough, it will has a chance to be >> packed into a cpu which is busy but still has time to care it. >> For powersaving policy, only the history util < 25% task has chance to >> be packed, and for balance policy, only histroy util < 12.5% has chance. >> If there is no cpu eligible to handle it, will use a idlest cpu in >> leader group. > > After exec(), task's behavior may be changed, and history util may be > changed, too. So, IMHO, exec balancing by history util is not good idea. > How do you think about it? > sounds make sense. are there any objections?