Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <4a457db8-428f-52ac-a864-cd3d2fda705a@bytedance.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:51:42 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] introduce sched-idle balancing
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
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>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
References: <20220217154403.6497-1-wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
 <YheiT2pGNDggdFSu@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKfTPtB_GGb2eZqWfmKrY3-Z9spN9wzU4pXMGz38bAZu8ExCMQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtB_GGb2eZqWfmKrY3-Z9spN9wzU4pXMGz38bAZu8ExCMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/24/22 11:29 PM, Vincent Guittot Wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 at 16:20, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> 
> I agree, You failed to explain why newly_idle and periodic idle load
> balance are not enough and we need this new one

Hi Vincent, sorry for not giving a clearer explanation. Please check
my previous email replying to Peter, thanks.

Best Regards,
	Abel