[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1347388574.26695.135.camel@sbsiddha-desk.sc.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:36:12 -0700
From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, venki@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: trigger_load_balance clean up
On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 15:10 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> Remove a redundant check for on_null_domain(cpu), and rerange the code
> that make it more readable.
hmm, but we are now doing the on_null_domain() check always,
irrespective of whether we need the load balance or not.
do we really need the on_null_domain() check there? What happens if we
just remove it?
thanks,
suresh
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 +++++---
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 5bbc4bf..529092d 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4934,11 +4934,13 @@ static inline int on_null_domain(int cpu)
> void trigger_load_balance(struct rq *rq, int cpu)
> {
> /* Don't need to rebalance while attached to NULL domain */
> - if (time_after_eq(jiffies, rq->next_balance) &&
> - likely(!on_null_domain(cpu)))
> + if (unlikely(on_null_domain(cpu)))
> + return;
> +
> + if (time_after_eq(jiffies, rq->next_balance))
> raise_softirq(SCHED_SOFTIRQ);
> #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ
> - if (nohz_kick_needed(rq, cpu) && likely(!on_null_domain(cpu)))
> + if (nohz_kick_needed(rq, cpu))
> nohz_balancer_kick(cpu);
> #endif
> }
--
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