Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:20:47 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
Cc:     Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] introduce sched-idle balancing
Message-ID: <YheiT2pGNDggdFSu@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20220217154403.6497-1-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220217154403.6497-1-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 11:43:56PM +0800, Abel Wu wrote:
> Current load balancing is mainly based on cpu capacity
> and task util, which makes sense in the POV of overall
> throughput. While there still might be some improvement
> can be done by reducing number of overloaded cfs rqs if
> sched-idle or idle rq exists.

I'm much confused, there is an explicit new-idle balancer and a periodic
idle balancer already there.