On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 at 18:40, Valentin Schneider <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 07/01/21 13:20, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 at 12:26, Valentin Schneider > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > @@ -9499,13 +9499,32 @@ asym_active_balance(struct lb_env *env) > >> > } > >> > > >> > static inline bool > >> > -voluntary_active_balance(struct lb_env *env) > >> > +imbalanced_active_balance(struct lb_env *env) > >> > +{ > >> > + struct sched_domain *sd = env->sd; > >> > + > >> > + /* > >> > + * The imbalanced case includes the case of pinned tasks > >> > preventing a fair > >> > + * distribution of the load on the system but also the even > >> > distribution of the > >> > + * threads on a system with spare capacity > >> > + */ > >> > >> Do you mean s/imbalanced/migrate_task/? This part here will affect > >> group_imbalanced, group_asym_packing, and some others. > > > > I really mean the imbalanced case which refers to the function name > > and includes: > > - the pinned tasks case aka group_imbalanced and which is the primary > > target of this function ( which explains its name) > > - but also the case where we want to evenly spread tasks on system > > with spare capacity and removed this imbalance > > > > But can't this also affect other group_types? calculate_imbalance() can > set > > env->migration_type = migrate_task; > > for > > busiest->group_type > group_fully_busy
yes but we are still in the case of evenly spread tasks on system with spare capacity. Also, this is already the behavior for such cases.
