On 08/01/21 09:11, Vincent Guittot wrote: > 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.
Ah, I was parsing 'imbalance' as 'group_imbalance' and didn't read your 'evenly spread tasks' description as accounting this case. Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <[email protected]>
