[PATCH v7 6/7] sched: replace capacity_factor by usage
Wanpeng Li
kernellwp at gmail.com
Sat Nov 22 17:03:16 PST 2014
Hi Vincent,
On 10/9/14, 10:18 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 9 October 2014 14:16, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:13:36PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> +static inline bool
>>> +group_has_capacity(struct lb_env *env, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs)
>>> {
>>> + if ((sgs->group_capacity * 100) >
>>> + (sgs->group_usage * env->sd->imbalance_pct))
>>> + return true;
>> Why the imb_pct there? We're looking for 100% utilization, not 130 or
>> whatnot, right?
> Having exactly 100% is quite difficult because of various rounding.
Could you give some examples about the various rounding?
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
> So i have added a margin/threshold to prevent any excessive change of the state.
> I have just to use the same margin/threshold than in other place in
> load balance.
>
> so the current threshold depends of the sched_level. it's around 14% at MC level
>
>>> + if (sgs->sum_nr_running < sgs->group_weight)
>>> + return true;
>> With the code as it stands, this is the cheaper test (no mults) so why
>> is it second?
>>
>>> + return false;
>>> +}
>>>
>>> +static inline bool
>>> +group_is_overloaded(struct lb_env *env, struct sg_lb_stats *sgs)
>>> +{
>>> + if (sgs->sum_nr_running <= sgs->group_weight)
>>> + return false;
>>> +
>>> + if ((sgs->group_capacity * 100) <
>>> + (sgs->group_usage * env->sd->imbalance_pct))
>>> + return true;
>>>
>>> + return false;
>>> }
>> Same thing here wrt imb_pct
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list