RE: [PATCH v8 03/10] sched: move cfs task on a CPU with higher capacity

["Hillf Danton" <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>]

> >> > I wonder if you can please shed light on the case that
> >> > the dst_cpu is newly idle.
> >>
> >> The main problem if we do the test only for newly idle case, is that
> >> we are not sure to move the task because we must rely on the
> >> wakeup/sleep sequence of other tasks on an idle CPU in order to trig
> >> the migration (periodic background task as an example). So we might
> >> never move the task whereas idle CPUs are available
> >>
> > So no task is migrated in the newly idle case, if I understand the
> > above correctly.
> 
> A task can be moved in both idle and newly idle. If we rely only on
> newly idle and we  have only idle CPUs, we can never move task. In the
> same way, if we rely only on idle case and a CPU never stays idle long
> enough to trig the idle load balance, we will never move the task. I
> agree that for the latter, we might wonder if it's worth moving the
> task. This is your concern ?
> 
I concern if the only-one cfs task is migrated to a newly-idle CPU in
your code:
+	/*
+	 * The dst_cpu is idle and the src_cpu CPU has only 1 CFS task.
+	 * It's worth migrating the task if the src_cpu's capacity is reduced
+	 * because of other sched_class or IRQs whereas capacity stays
+	 * available on dst_cpu.
+	 */
+	if ((env->idle != CPU_NOT_IDLE) &&
+			(env->src_rq->cfs.h_nr_running == 1)) {
+	
due to the comment:
                /*
                 * Increment the failure counter only on periodic balance.
                 * We do not want newidle balance, which can be very
                 * frequent, pollute the failure counter causing
                 * excessive cache_hot migrations and active balances.
                 */
                if (idle != CPU_NEWLY_IDLE)
                        sd->nr_balance_failed++;

Hillf