On 21 November 2014 at 13:37, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmus...@arm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 04:54:45PM +0000, Vincent Guittot wrote:
[snip]
>> */
>> if (prefer_sibling && sds->local &&
>> - sds->local_stat.group_has_free_capacity)
>> - sgs->group_capacity_factor =
>> min(sgs->group_capacity_factor, 1U);
>> + group_has_capacity(env, &sds->local_stat) &&
>> + (sgs->sum_nr_running > 1)) {
>> + sgs->group_no_capacity = 1;
>> + sgs->group_type = group_overloaded;
>> + }
>
> I'm still a bit confused about SD_PREFER_SIBLING. What is the flag
> supposed to do and why?
The goal is to spread tasks across the group even if the the latter is
not overloaded. for SMT level, the goal is to have 1 task per core
before 1 task per HW thread
>
> It looks like a weak load balancing bias attempting to consolidate tasks
> on domains with spare capacity. It does so by marking non-local groups
> as overloaded regardless of their actual load if the local group has
> spare capacity. Correct?
>
> In patch 9 this behaviour is enabled for SMT level domains, which
> implies that tasks will be consolidated in MC groups, that is we prefer
> multiple tasks on sibling cpus (hw threads). I must be missing something
> essential. I was convinced that we wanted to avoid using sibling cpus on
> SMT systems as much as possible?
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
