On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 16:54, Valentin Schneider <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 19/12/2018 13:29, Vincent Guittot wrote: > [...] > >> My point is that AFAICT the LBF_ALL_PINNED flag would cover all the cases > >> we care about, although the one you're mentioning is the only one I can > >> think of. In that case LBF_ALL_PINNED would never be cleared, so when we do > >> the active balance we'd know it's because all other tasks were pinned so > >> we should probably increase the interval (see last snippet I sent). > > > > There are probably several other UC than the one mentioned below as > > tasks can be discarded for several reasons. > > So instead of changing for all UC by default, i would prefer only > > change for those for which we know it's safe > > I get your point. Thing is, I've stared at the code for a while and > couldn't find any other usecase where checking LBF_ALL_PINNED wouldn't > suffice.
The point is that LBF_ALL_PINNED flag is not set otherwise we would have jump to out_*_pinned But conditions are similar > > It would be nice convince ourselves it is indeed enough (or not, but then > we should be sure of it rather than base ourselves on assumptions), because > then we can have just a simple condition rather than something that > introduces active balance categories. this can be part of the larger rework that Peter asked few days ago
