[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1287145214.29097.1464.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:20:14 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Nikhil Rao <ncrao@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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 Fri, 2010-10-15 at 14:18 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 14:06 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 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?
>
> (I did that)
>
> No, just it made it look prettier to me. I figured the compiler will
> nuke it at zero cost.
Sure.. but it does raise the whole naming/confusion angle ;-)
--
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