[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1323943710.18942.24.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2011 11:08:30 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
patches@...aro.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: Ensure cpu_power periodic update
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 20:21 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> With a lot of small tasks, the softirq sched is nearly never called
> when no_hz is enable. In this case the load_balance is mainly called with
> the newly_idle mode which doesn't update the cpu_power.
> Add a next_update field which ensure a maximum update period when
> there is short activity
> + if (local_group) {
> + if (idle != CPU_NEWLY_IDLE) {
> + if (balance_cpu != this_cpu) {
> + *balance = 0;
> + return;
> + }
> + update_group_power(sd, this_cpu);
> + } else if (time_after_eq(jiffies, group->sgp->next_update))
> + update_group_power(sd, this_cpu);
> }
Hmm, I would have expected it to be called from the NOHZ balancing path
instead of the new_idle path. Your changelog fails to mentions any
considerations on this..
Then again, its probably easier to keep update_group_power on this_cpu
than to allow a remote update of your cpu_power.
So I'm not opposed to this patch, I'd just like a little extra
clarification.
--
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