From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751364AbcFBHQn (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 2 Jun 2016 03:16:43 -0400
Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:1203 "EHLO mga11.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750740AbcFBHQm (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 2 Jun 2016 03:16:42 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.26,405,1459839600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="993607360"
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 07:19:28 +0800
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
Message-ID: <20160601231928.GC18670@intel.com>
References: <1464657098-24880-2-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com>
 <20160531092146.GT3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160531013132.GQ18670@intel.com>
 <1464757633.4023.39.camel@gmail.com>
 <20160601000105.GU18670@intel.com>
 <CAKfTPtBig+kRVeOoYqhoa1GRXzbjMKmR8ODgAGZr0Jcm-YZncQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160601010311.GV18670@intel.com>
 <CAKfTPtCH9ycaTfK383b6DqE7JSOwz_e4Xr46S+XF5ZGVE4+_Jg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160601193524.GZ18670@intel.com>
 <CAKfTPtDveMbwiphH8xBsquYdwind8xXGLqLhpOzgEqPcWdnzhg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDveMbwiphH8xBsquYdwind8xXGLqLhpOzgEqPcWdnzhg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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...