Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 10:38:08 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        juri.lelli@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, bristot@redhat.com,
        kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] sched/deadline: Make find_later_rq() choose a
 closer cpu in topology
Message-ID: <20170713013808.GF20323@X58A-UD3R>
References: <1495504859-10960-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <1495504859-10960-2-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com>
 <20170712131336.wbfefpnoj6ygzg7n@e106622-lin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170712131336.wbfefpnoj6ygzg7n@e106622-lin>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 633
Lines: 20

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:13:36PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > @@ -1367,6 +1364,7 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task)
> >  	rcu_read_lock();
> >  	for_each_domain(cpu, sd) {
> >  		if (sd->flags & SD_WAKE_AFFINE) {

Hi,

> This is orthogonal to the proposed change, but I'm wondering if it make
> sense to do the following only for SD_WAKE_AFFINE domains. The

Actually I also wonder it..

> consideration applies to RT as well, actually. Also, find_later_rq gets
> called when trying to push tasks away as well and in that case checking
> for this flag seems inappropriate? Peter, Steve?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> - Juri