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 S1752918AbcGOIf7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 04:35:59 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:47397 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752560AbcGOIf4 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 04:35:56 -0400
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 09:37:33 +0100
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>, mgalbraith@suse.de,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/13] sched/fair: Let asymmetric cpu configurations
 balance at wake-up
Message-ID: <20160715083732.GE21816@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1466615004-3503-1-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
 <1466615004-3503-8-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtDv-6eQQQTbB3aOCwRneabv0Gyq1Bi5SWAZUBT_BXNydw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160713161441.GB21816@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtDE1NsA_q4zGrwBXBBHfdzjFwzPohO+iLqeooZ0S8-jQQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDE1NsA_q4zGrwBXBBHfdzjFwzPohO+iLqeooZ0S8-jQQ@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, Jul 14, 2016 at 03:45:17PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 13 July 2016 at 18:14, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:56:41PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> On 22 June 2016 at 19:03, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com> wrote:
> >> > Currently, SD_WAKE_AFFINE always takes priority over wakeup balancing if
> >> > SD_BALANCE_WAKE is set on the sched_domains. For asymmetric
> >> > configurations SD_WAKE_AFFINE is only desirable if the waking task's
> >> > compute demand (utilization) is suitable for all the cpu capacities
> >> > available within the SD_WAKE_AFFINE sched_domain. If not, let wakeup
> >>
> >> instead of "suitable for all the cpu capacities available within the
> >> SD_WAKE_AFFINE sched_domain", should it be "suitable for local cpu and
> >> prev cpu" becasue you only check the capacity of these 2 CPUs.
> >
> > Good point. I currently make the implicit assumption that capacity of local cpu
> > and prev cpu represent the capacity for all cpus their SD_WAKE_AFFINE
> > domains. It breaks if you should choose to have SD_WAKE_AFFINE on a
> > domain that spans both little and big cpus, as if local/prev cpu happens
> > to be big we assume that they are all big and let select_idle_sibling()
> > handle the task placement even for big tasks if local/prev cpu are both
> > big.
> 
> Isn't the sd_llc used in select_idle_sibling and not the
> SD_WAKE_AFFINE domian so if CPUs in the sd_llc are homogeneous, we are
> safe

Yes, I confused myself (again) with SD_WAKE_AFFINE and sd_llc in the
above. It should have been sd_llc instead of SD_WAKE_AFFINE. I will fix
the commit message to be correct.