Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754753AbdHVHmV (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2017 03:42:21 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:38894 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754645AbdHVHmU (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Aug 2017 03:42:20 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 08:42:16 +0100 From: Juri Lelli To: Byungchul Park Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, joel.opensrc@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, juri.lelli@gmail.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, kernel-team@lge.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] sched/deadline: Add support for SD_PREFER_SIBLING on find_later_rq() Message-ID: <20170822074216.azixh2kxoxrsaopk@e106622-lin> References: <1503044519-2804-1-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <1503044519-2804-2-git-send-email-byungchul.park@lge.com> <20170821134458.gocjoobaybb45egi@e106622-lin> <20170822055325.GE20323@X58A-UD3R> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170822055325.GE20323@X58A-UD3R> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2596 Lines: 72 Hi, On 22/08/17 14:53, Byungchul Park wrote: > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > Hi, > > On 18/08/17 17:21, Byungchul Park wrote: > > > It would be better to try to check other siblings first if > > > SD_PREFER_SIBLING is flaged when pushing tasks - migration. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park > > > > Mmm, this looks like Peter's proposed patch, maybe add (at least) a > > Suggested-by: him ? > > Hi Juri, > > Why not. I will add it from the next spin. > > BTW, is it enough? I don't know the way I should do, whenever I got > thankful suggestions. I really want to add them as a separate patch > which can be stacked on my patches _if possible_. But in case that > it's better to merge them into one like this, I don't know how. > It usually depends on the entity of the suggestion (is it expressed with a sentence, actual code or a proper patch?) and what the person suggesting it is fine with. I usually simply ask. :) > I mean I will add 'Suggested-by' from now on - I learned what I should > do (at least) in this case thanks to Juri, but I'm still not sure if > it's enough. > > Speaking of which, I have something to ask Peterz and Ingo for. I really > want to interact with maintainers actively e.g. asking ways they prefer. > But it takes too much long to get responses from them e.g. at most 2 > monthes in case rushing them. I should have decided and done what the > best I think is, than asking. > > It would be very appriciated if you pay more attention. > I try to be as responsive as I can (I think this applies to everyone) and I apologize if from time to time it takes too much to reply. Balance between upstream and product work means that there are times when one of the two gets a bit delayed, I'm afraid. Please keep asking questions, propose solutions and chase people! :) > > > @@ -1376,8 +1399,7 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task) > > > return this_cpu; > > > } > > > > > > - best_cpu = cpumask_first_and(later_mask, > > > - sched_domain_span(sd)); > > > + best_cpu = find_cpu(later_mask, sd, prefer); > > > /* > > > * Last chance: if a cpu being in both later_mask > > > * and current sd span is valid, that becomes our > > > @@ -1385,6 +1407,26 @@ static int find_later_rq(struct task_struct *task) > > > * already under consideration through later_mask. > > > */ > > > > It seems that the comment above should be updated as well. > > How? Could you explain it more? > Simply removing it might just work. Thanks, - Juri