[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130823045154.GB22605@lge.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:51:54 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Lei Wen <leiwen@...vell.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] sched: Factor out code to should_we_balance()
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:42:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > +redo:
> >
> > One behavioral change worth noting here is that in the redo case if a
> > CPU has become idle we'll continue trying to load-balance in the
> > !new-idle case.
> >
> > This could be unpleasant in the case where a package has a pinned busy
> > core allowing this and a newly idle cpu to start dueling for load.
> >
> > While more deterministically bad in this case now, it could racily do
> > this before anyway so perhaps not worth worrying about immediately.
>
> Ah, because the old code would effectively redo the check and find the
> idle cpu and thereby our cpu would no longer be the balance_cpu.
>
> Indeed. And I don't think this was an intentional change. I'll go put
> the redo back before should_we_balance().
Ah, yes.
It isn't my intention. Please fix it.
Thanks.
--
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