[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287144395.29097.1462.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:06:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Nikhil Rao <ncrao@...gle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched: force balancing on newidle balance if local
group has capacity
On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 12:09 -0700, Nikhil Rao wrote:
> +bool check_utilization(struct sd_lb_stats *sds)
> +{
> + if (!sds->this_has_capacity || sds->busiest_has_capacity)
> + return false;
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> /******* find_busiest_group() helpers end here *********************/
>
> /**
> @@ -2824,6 +2845,10 @@ find_busiest_group(struct sched_domain *sd, int this_cpu,
> if (!sds.busiest || sds.busiest_nr_running == 0)
> goto out_balanced;
>
> + /* SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE trumps SMP nice when underutilized */
> + if (idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE && check_utilization(&sds))
> + goto force_balance;
Is that really worth an extra function? Also the name isn't really
helpful, the comment suggests it should be called something like:
is_under_utilized().
Hmm?
--
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