Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] introduce sched-idle balancing

[Josh Don]

On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 5:36 AM Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
> > Also place the filter first and do any measurements of any change to
> > balancing versus the filter. I'm suggesting placing the filter first
> > because it's less controversial than a new balancer. Just be aware that
> > the filter alone is not a guarantee of merging as there have been a few
> > approaches to filtering and so far all of them had downsides on either cost
>
> Yes, understood. I will adjust the patches as you suggested and send v2
> together with more tests next week.

+1 to trying the filter rather than introducing a new balance path.

We've found the sched_idle_cpu() checks in the wakeup path to be
adequate in allowing non-idle tasks to fully consume cpu resources
(but that of course relies on wakeup balancing, and not periodic
balancing).

Please cc me on the next series.

Thanks,
Josh