On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:34:47AM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:49:40PM +0000, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > > > Also, it still not clear why patch 10 uses relative capacity reduction > > instead of absolute capacity available to CFS tasks. > > As present in your asymmetric big and small systems? Yes it would be > unfortunate to migrate a task to an idle small core when the big core is > still faster, even if reduced by rt/irq work.
Yes, exactly. I don't think it would cause any harm for symmetric cases to use absolute capacity instead. Am I missing something? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
