Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S944794AbcJSPVG (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:21:06 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:54825 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S944642AbcJSPUy (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:20:54 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:53:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>, 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>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not decay new task load on first enqueue
Message-ID: <20161019095350.GH3102@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <CANRm+CyVFuT3XJt7DZEBZgHb_hQPzDUfOGnkAqNexH4q2ex74Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161010100107.GZ16071@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <CAKfTPtBFrahA2fBoG5S5CBiJHb8EZkUbPaOZ4jZFc1mVYH5zJQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161010173440.GA28945@linaro.org>
 <20161011102453.GA16071@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <20161018102937.GI16071@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <20161018111017.GY3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20161018112957.GJ16071@codeblueprint.co.uk>
 <20161018121557.GA3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKfTPtBnpDMh=v6fxqtV0sTeFzVqK6HrAsVXvO0WZqrQTbxYng@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtBnpDMh=v6fxqtV0sTeFzVqK6HrAsVXvO0WZqrQTbxYng@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1447
Lines: 48

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:38:12AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > It might make sense to have helper functions to evaluate those
> 
> The main issue is the number of parameters used in these conditions
> that makes helper function not really more readable.

Fair enough I suppose..

> > conditions, because currently there's two instances of each, once in the
> > branch selection and then again (but inverted, we miss the == case fwiw)
> 
> not sure to catch the comment about inverted and miss the == case

Oh, you're right. Which proves my point on this not being entirely
readable :/

Initially I thought the things were of the form:

	else if (ineq) {
	}

	...

	if (... || !ineq || ...)


Which would get you things like: a<b, !a<b := a>b, and leave a==b
undefined. But if I put them along side one another like:


+		} else if (min_runnable_load > (runnable_load + imbalance)) {

+	                  (min_runnable_load > (this_runnable_load + imbalance)) ||


+		} else if ((runnable_load < (min_runnable_load + imbalance)) &&
+				(100*min_avg_load > sd->imbalance_pct*avg_load)) {

+	             ((this_runnable_load < (min_runnable_load + imbalance)) &&
+			        (100*min_avg_load > sd->imbalance_pct*this_avg_load)))

We can see this is not in fact the case.

Blergh, I also cannot see a pretty way to increase readability here,
because while they have the same general shape, there's this small
variation with this_*.

A well..