Re: [PATCH v4 04/11] sched/fair: rework load_balance

[Mel Gorman]

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 02:50:17PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > s/groupe_type/group_type/
> > 
> > >  enum group_type {
> > > -	group_other = 0,
> > > +	group_has_spare = 0,
> > > +	group_fully_busy,
> > >  	group_misfit_task,
> > > +	group_asym_packing,
> > >  	group_imbalanced,
> > > -	group_overloaded,
> > > +	group_overloaded
> > > +};
> > > +
> > 
> > While not your fault, it would be nice to comment on the meaning of each
> > group type. From a glance, it's not obvious to me why a misfit task should
> > be a high priority to move a task than a fully_busy (but not overloaded)
> > group given that moving the misfit task might make a group overloaded.
> 
> This part of your feedback should now be addressed in the scheduler tree 
> via:
> 
>   a9723389cc75: sched/fair: Add comments for group_type and balancing at SD_NUMA level
> 

While I can't see that commit ID yet, the discussed version of the patch
was fine by me.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs