Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752172AbcJKK2G (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 11 Oct 2016 06:28:06 -0400
Received: from mail-qt0-f171.google.com ([209.85.216.171]:33211 "EHLO
        mail-qt0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751953AbcJKK2E (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 11 Oct 2016 06:28:04 -0400
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:27:47 +0100
From: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
        Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue
Message-ID: <20161011102747.GB16071@codeblueprint.co.uk>
References: <20160923115808.2330-1-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <20160928101422.GR5016@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160928193731.GD16071@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <CANRm+CyVFuT3XJt7DZEBZgHb_hQPzDUfOGnkAqNexH4q2ex74Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161010100107.GZ16071@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <CANRm+CxGHVoJO6i1Yjcqk_njTgPiZKK2_EJ3f8nsKN92is0dsQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANRm+CxGHVoJO6i1Yjcqk_njTgPiZKK2_EJ3f8nsKN92is0dsQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24+41 (02bc14ed1569) (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 973
Lines: 22

On Mon, 10 Oct, at 06:09:14PM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2016-10-10 18:01 GMT+08:00 Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>:
> > On Sun, 09 Oct, at 11:39:27AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >>
> >> The difference between this patch and Peterz's is your patch have a
> >> delta since activate_task()->enqueue_task() does do update_rq_clock(),
> >> so why don't have the delta will cause low cpu machines (4 or 8) to
> >> regress against your another reply in this thread?
> >
> > Both my patch and Peter's patch cause issues with low cpu machines. In
> > <20161004201105.GP16071@codeblueprint.co.uk> I said,
> >
> >  "This patch causes some low cpu machines (4 or 8) to regress. It turns
> >   out they regress with my patch too."
> >
> > Have I misunderstood your question?
> 
> I compare this one https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=147446511924571
> with Peterz's patch.

Oh. Low cpu machines probably do regress with my patch. At least, I
can't find the notes to prove that they don't.