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 S1754812AbcK1RVY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:21:24 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:33471 "EHLO
        mail-wm0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1754710AbcK1RUl (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 28 Nov 2016 12:20:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161128170124.GA20785@codeblueprint.co.uk>
References: <1480088073-11642-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <1480088073-11642-2-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20161128170124.GA20785@codeblueprint.co.uk>
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 18:20:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtAdzaAuVHTGGe92swPnDL5exhGHs1EG7BDMMtc8ktusmw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v2] sched: fix find_idlest_group for fork
To: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>, Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 28 November 2016 at 18:01, Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov, at 04:34:32PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index aa47589..820a787 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -5463,13 +5463,19 @@ find_idlest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
>>        * utilized systems if we require spare_capacity > task_util(p),
>>        * so we allow for some task stuffing by using
>>        * spare_capacity > task_util(p)/2.
>> +      * spare capacity can't be used for fork because the utilization has
>> +      * not been set yet as it need to get a rq to init the utilization
>>        */
>> +     if (sd_flag & SD_BALANCE_FORK)
>> +             goto no_spare;
>> +
>>       if (this_spare > task_util(p) / 2 &&
>>           imbalance*this_spare > 100*most_spare)
>>               return NULL;
>>       else if (most_spare > task_util(p) / 2)
>>               return most_spare_sg;
>>
>> +no_spare:
>>       if (!idlest || 100*this_load < imbalance*min_load)
>>               return NULL;
>>       return idlest;
>
> It's only a minor comment, but would you be opposed to calling this
> label 'skip_spare' to indicate that spare capacity may exist, but
> we're not going to make use of it?

you're right,  'skip_spare' makes more sense