[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1363703415.22553.54.camel@laptop>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:30:15 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] sched: clean up move_task() and move_one_task()
On Thu, 2013-02-14 at 14:48 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Some validation for task moving is performed in move_tasks() and
> move_one_task(). We can move these code to can_migrate_task()
> which is already exist for this purpose.
> @@ -4011,18 +4027,7 @@ static int move_tasks(struct lb_env *env)
> break;
> }
>
> - if (throttled_lb_pair(task_group(p), env->src_cpu, env->dst_cpu))
> - goto next;
> -
> - load = task_h_load(p);
> -
> - if (sched_feat(LB_MIN) && load < 16 && !env->sd->nr_balance_failed)
> - goto next;
> -
> - if ((load / 2) > env->imbalance)
> - goto next;
> -
> - if (!can_migrate_task(p, env))
> + if (!can_migrate_task(p, env, false, &load))
> goto next;
>
> move_task(p, env);
Right, so I'm not so taken with this one. The whole load stuff really
is a balance heuristic that's part of move_tasks(), move_one_task()
really doesn't care about that.
So why did you include it? Purely so you didn't have to re-order the
tests? I don't see any reason not to flip a tests around.
--
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