Hi Vincent,
On 27 February 2015 at 23:54, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote:
> /**
> @@ -6432,18 +6435,19 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env
> *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sd
>
> /*
> * In case the child domain prefers tasks go to siblings
> - * first, lower the sg capacity factor to one so that we'll
> try
> + * first, lower the sg capacity so that we'll try
> * and move all the excess tasks away. We lower the capacity
> * of a group only if the local group has the capacity to fit
> - * these excess tasks, i.e. nr_running <
> group_capacity_factor. The
> - * extra check prevents the case where you always pull from
> the
> - * heaviest group when it is already under-utilized (possible
> - * with a large weight task outweighs the tasks on the
> system).
> + * these excess tasks. The extra check prevents the case where
> + * you always pull from the heaviest group when it is already
> + * under-utilized (possible with a large weight task outweighs
> + * the tasks on the system).
> */
> if (prefer_sibling && sds->local &&
> - sds->local_stat.group_has_free_capacity) {
> - sgs->group_capacity_factor =
> min(sgs->group_capacity_factor, 1U);
> - sgs->group_type = group_classify(sg, sgs);
> + group_has_capacity(env, &sds->local_stat) &&
> + (sgs->sum_nr_running > 1)) {
> + sgs->group_no_capacity = 1;
> + sgs->group_type = group_overloaded;
> }
>
For SD_PREFER_SIBLING, if local has 1 task and group_has_capacity()
returns true(but not overloaded) for it, and assume sgs group has 2
tasks, should we still mark this group overloaded?
-Xunlei
--
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/
