Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Nov 2019 14:50:17 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 04/11] sched/fair: rework load_balance |
| |
* Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:
> s/groupe_type/group_type/ > > > enum group_type { > > - group_other = 0, > > + group_has_spare = 0, > > + group_fully_busy, > > group_misfit_task, > > + group_asym_packing, > > group_imbalanced, > > - group_overloaded, > > + group_overloaded > > +}; > > + > > While not your fault, it would be nice to comment on the meaning of each > group type. From a glance, it's not obvious to me why a misfit task should > be a high priority to move a task than a fully_busy (but not overloaded) > group given that moving the misfit task might make a group overloaded.
This part of your feedback should now be addressed in the scheduler tree via:
a9723389cc75: sched/fair: Add comments for group_type and balancing at SD_NUMA level
> > +enum migration_type { > > + migrate_load = 0, > > + migrate_util, > > + migrate_task, > > + migrate_misfit > > }; > > > > Could do with a comment explaining what migration_type is for because > the name is unhelpful. I *think* at a glance it's related to what sort > of imbalance is being addressed which is partially addressed by the > group_type. That understanding may change as I continue reading the series > but now I have to figure it out which means it'll be forgotten again in > 6 months.
Agreed. Vincent, is any patch brewing here, or should I take a stab?
Thanks,
Ingo
| |