On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 21:45, Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calde...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 12:13:42PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 16:41, Ricardo Neri > > <ricardo.neri-calde...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > @@ -9540,6 +9629,12 @@ static struct rq *find_busiest_queue(struct lb_env > > > *env, > > > nr_running == 1) > > > continue; > > > > > > + /* Make sure we only pull tasks from a CPU of lower > > > priority */ > > > + if ((env->sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING) && > > > + sched_asym_prefer(i, env->dst_cpu) && > > > + nr_running == 1) > > > + continue; > > > > This really looks similar to the test above for SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY. > > More generally speaking SD_ASYM_PACKING and SD_ASYM_CPUCAPACITY share > > a lot of common policy and I wonder if at some point we could not > > merge their behavior in LB > > I would like to confirm with you that you are not expecting this merge > as part of this series, right?
Merging them will probably need more tests on both x86 and Arm so I suppose that we could keep them separate for now Regards, Vincent > > Thanks and BR, > Ricardo
