Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Nov 2019 14:51:34 +0000 | From | Mel Gorman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 04/11] sched/fair: rework load_balance |
| |
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 02:50:17PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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 >
While I can't see that commit ID yet, the discussed version of the patch was fine by me.
-- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
| |