Re: [RFC] sched: CPU topology try

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 12:35:34PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > Currently we detect overload by sg.nr_running >= sg.capacity, which can
> > be very misleading because while a cpu might have a task running 'now'
> > it might be 99% idle.
> > 
> > At which point I argued we should change the capacity thing anyhow. Ever
> > since the runnable_avg patch set I've been arguing to change that into
> > an actual utilization test.
> > 
> > So I think that if we measure overload by something like >95% utilization
> > on the entire group the load scaling again makes perfect sense.
> 
> I agree that it make more sense to change the overload test to be based
> on some tracked load. How about the non-overloaded case? Load balancing
> would have to be based on unweighted task loads in that case?

Yeah, until we're overloaded our goal is to minimize idle time.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/