On 04/02/21 12:44, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 03/02/2021 19:43, Valentin Schneider wrote: >> On 03/02/21 15:16, Qais Yousef wrote: >>> On 01/28/21 18:31, Valentin Schneider wrote: >>>> Giving group_misfit_task a higher group_classify() priority than >>>> group_imbalance doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Instead, make >>>> need_active_balance() return true for any migration_type when the >>> >>> s/need_active_balance()/voluntary_active_balance()/? >>> >>>> destination CPU is idle and the source CPU has a misfit task. >>>> >>>> While at it, add an sd_has_asym_cpucapacity() guard in >>>> need_active_balance(). >>> >>> ditto. >>> >> >> Myes, clearly this has been left to ferment for too long! > > Wasn't the migrate_misfit condition moved from > voluntary_active_balance() into need_active_balance() by commit > ("sched/fair: Reduce cases for active balance")?
Bah, you're right, I got confused with when I first wrote that vs when I last updated the changelog. As of e9b9734b7465 ("sched/fair: Reduce cases for active balance")e9b9734b7465 The above changelog is actually correct.