[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1335954690.13683.178.camel@twins>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 12:31:30 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, pjt@...gle.com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
efault@....de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] sched, fair: Let minimally loaded cpu balance
the group
On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 15:55 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> [2012-05-01 20:14:31]:
>
> > @@ -3795,12 +3796,11 @@ static inline void update_sg_lb_stats(st
> >
> > /* Bias balancing toward cpus of our domain */
> > if (local_group) {
> > - if (idle_cpu(i) && !first_idle_cpu) {
> > - first_idle_cpu = 1;
> > + load = target_load(i, load_idx);
> > + if (load < balance_load || idle_cpu(i)) {
> > + balance_load = load;
>
> Let's say load_idx != 0 (ex: a busy cpu doing this load balance). In
> that case, for a idle cpu, we could return non-zero load and hence this
> would fail to select such a idle cpu?
Yep, such is the nature of !0 load_idx.
> IOW :
>
> balance_load = 0 iff idle_cpu(i) ??
I think so, even for !0 load_idx, load will only reach zero when we're
idle, just takes longer.
--
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