From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751375AbcFATpg (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 15:45:36 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:39971 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750765AbcFATpf (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 15:45:35 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] sched: reflect sched_entity movement into task_group's utilization To: Peter Zijlstra , Vincent Guittot References: <1464080252-17209-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20160601125407.GA28447@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Cc: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pjt@google.com, yuyang.du@intel.com, bsegall@google.com, Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com From: Dietmar Eggemann Message-ID: <574F3B57.50801@arm.com> Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 20:45:27 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160601125407.GA28447@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/06/16 13:54, 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. IMHO, the 'flat utilization hierarchy' discussion started here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/1/514 In the meantime I continued to play with the idea of a flat utilization hierarchy based on the exiting PELT code. I just sent out the RFC patch set for people to compare with Vincent's approach. > 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? I think Yuyang dropped the 'flat utilization hierarchy' in https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/28/270 > (just so I can get a picture of what all patches to look at when > reviewing)