From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751851AbdBIMXL (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 07:23:11 -0500 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:58252 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751014AbdBIMXF (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 07:23:05 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 13:22:18 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Uladzislau Rezki Cc: Ingo Molnar , LKML , Uladzislau 2 Rezki Subject: Re: [RFC,v2 3/3] sched: ignore task_h_load for CPU_NEWLY_IDLE Message-ID: <20170209122218.GE6500@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1486543409-11493-1-git-send-email-urezki@gmail.com> <1486543409-11493-3-git-send-email-urezki@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1486543409-11493-3-git-send-email-urezki@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 09:43:29AM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > From: Uladzislau 2 Rezki > > 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.