[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1364654108-16307-18-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 22:35:04 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de,
pjt@...gle.com, namhyung@...nel.org, efault@....de
Cc: vincent.guittot@...aro.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alex.shi@...el.com
Subject: [patch v6 17/21] sched: no balance for prefer_sibling in power scheduling
In power aware scheduling, we don't want to balance 'prefer_sibling'
groups just because local group has capacity.
If the local group has no tasks at the time, that is the power
balance hope so.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index d25fb3b..0a53e2a 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -4772,8 +4772,12 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env,
* extra check prevents the case where you always pull from the
* heaviest group when it is already under-utilized (possible
* with a large weight task outweighs the tasks on the system).
+ *
+ * In power aware scheduling, we don't care load weight and
+ * want not to pull tasks just because local group has capacity.
*/
- if (prefer_sibling && !local_group && sds->this_has_capacity)
+ if (prefer_sibling && !local_group && sds->this_has_capacity
+ && env->flags & LBF_PERF_BAL)
sgs.group_capacity = min(sgs.group_capacity, 1UL);
if (local_group) {
--
1.7.12
--
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