[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1239795719.22720.2231.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:41:59 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: miaox@...fujitsu.com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: fix off-by-one bug in balance_tasks()
On Wed, 2009-04-15 at 10:49 +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
> If the load that need be moved equals the half weight of a task, I think
> it is unnecessary to move this task. Or this task will be moved back and
> forth.
That's actually desirable. Consider the 3 tasks on 2 cpus statically
infeasible scenario. There you'd want the tasks to bounce around a bit
in order to provide fairness.
> Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index 5724508..44926c8 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -3085,7 +3085,7 @@ next:
> if (!p || loops++ > sysctl_sched_nr_migrate)
> goto out;
>
> - if ((p->se.load.weight >> 1) > rem_load_move ||
> + if ((p->se.load.weight >> 1) >= rem_load_move ||
> !can_migrate_task(p, busiest, this_cpu, sd, idle, &pinned)) {
> p = iterator->next(iterator->arg);
> goto next;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists