Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Jan 2014 13:45:34 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] sched: CPU topology try |
| |
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.
| |