From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] sched: Clean up SD_BALANCE_WAKE flags in sched domain build-up
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 07:19:28 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160601231928.GC18670@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDveMbwiphH8xBsquYdwind8xXGLqLhpOzgEqPcWdnzhg@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 08:56:40AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Well, I won't argue that this hasn't changed, but I'd argue that this change
> > isn't a bad change: (a) it restores the flags to their meanings and makes them
>
> Have you any proof that this change is not a bad thing ? Moreover have
> you got proof that it's a good thing ? Changing the meaning and the
> behavior of flags, just because you find it elegant, doesn't seem to
> be enough for me.
>
> So if you just want to rename the flags please keep current behavior unchange
Interestingly, I don't disagree with what you said, it is not just a renaming,
so I said the following:
"(b) we definitely need further work to improve select_task_rq_fair()"
That said, the changed behavior should be addressed, the waker CPU should be
a valid candidate for all SD_BALANCE_*, and whatnot...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-02 7:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-31 1:11 [RFC PATCH 0/2] Remove and replace SD_WAKE_AFFINE with SD_BALANCE_WAKE Yuyang Du
2016-05-31 1:11 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] sched: Clean up SD_BALANCE_WAKE flags in sched domain build-up Yuyang Du
2016-05-31 9:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-31 1:31 ` Yuyang Du
2016-05-31 10:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-31 18:00 ` Yuyang Du
2016-06-01 5:07 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-01 0:01 ` Yuyang Du
2016-06-01 8:32 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-06-01 1:03 ` Yuyang Du
2016-06-01 9:24 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-06-01 19:35 ` Yuyang Du
2016-06-02 6:56 ` Vincent Guittot
2016-06-01 23:19 ` Yuyang Du [this message]
2016-06-01 9:36 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-01 20:03 ` Yuyang Du
2016-06-02 5:50 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-06-01 22:41 ` Yuyang Du
2016-06-02 6:44 ` Mike Galbraith
2016-05-31 1:11 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] sched: Remove SD_WAKE_AFFINE flag and replace it with SD_BALANCE_WAKE Yuyang Du
2016-05-31 9:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-05-31 1:34 ` Yuyang Du
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=20160601231928.GC18670@intel.com \
--to=yuyang.du@intel.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pjt@google.com \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.