Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched/fair: Randomize equally shallow slow-path candidates

[Kayra Cizmeci]

> Actually about the last part, I'm leaning towards sticking with v1, because
> that is actually the current upstream behaviour. !idle CPUs currently trump
> any CPU seen so far, but preserve min_exit_latency, therefore sticking it
> into the shallowest seen reservoir is consistent IMO (although we can
> certainly debate if that should be the case).
> I'd prefer sending a follow-up with an idle helper and making a properly
> defined policy there, but that's adjacent to this patch.

Hello Christian,

I could send a patch about this if you want, after making sure about
everything, obviously.

I'm a bit sick, so if you say yes, I could be slow. But I don't think
it will take more than 3 days after your answer.

Thanks,
Kayra :>