Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 8 Oct 2019 19:55:37 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, pauld@redhat.com,
        valentin.schneider@arm.com, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        quentin.perret@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com, hdanton@sina.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/10] sched/fair: rework load_balance
Message-ID: <20191008175537.GC22902@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1568878421-12301-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <1568878421-12301-5-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1568878421-12301-5-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 09:33:35AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> +	if (busiest->group_type == group_asym_packing) {
> +		/*
> +		 * In case of asym capacity, we will try to migrate all load to
> +		 * the preferred CPU.
> +		 */
> +		env->balance_type = migrate_load;
>  		env->imbalance = busiest->group_load;
>  		return;
>  	}

I was a bit surprised with this; I sorta expected a migrate_task,1 here.

The asym_packing thing has always been a nr_running issue to me. If
there is something to run, we should run on as many siblings/cores as
possible, but preferably the 'highest' ranked siblings/cores.