On Sun, 2016-05-22 at 14:50 +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2016-05-21 22:04 GMT+08:00 Mike Galbraith <[email protected]>:
> > On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 19:43 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > (Evolution authors must either not do patch review, or use some other
> > mailer. Squint hard, this crud really is your patch;)
> >
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > >
> > > @@ -1762,7 +1770,11 @@ void sched_ttwu_pending(void)
> > > > > while (llist) {
> > > > > > p = llist_entry(llist, struct task_struct, wake_entry);
> > > > > > llist = llist_next(llist);
> > > -> > > ttwu_do_activate(rq, p, 0, cookie);
> > > +> > > /*
> > > +> > > * See ttwu_queue(); we only call ttwu_queue_remote() when
> > > +> > > * its a x-cpu wakeup.
> > > +> > > */
> > > +> > > ttwu_do_activate(rq, p, WF_MIGRATED, cookie);
> >
> > Wakees that were not migrated/normalized eat an unwanted min_vruntime,
>
> Why there were wakees queued by twu_queue_remote() not migrated?
Queuing to a remote cache domain implies x-cpu wakeup, but does not
imply migration.
-Mike
