[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140426145034.GL26782@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:50:34 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
alex.shi@...aro.org, efault@....de, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
morten.rasmussen@....com, aswin@...com, chegu_vinod@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched, balancing: Update rq->max_idle_balance_cost
whenever newidle balance is attempted
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:54:14PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> Preeti mentioned that sd->balance_interval is changed during load_balance().
> Should we also consider updating the interval in rebalance_domains() after
> calling load_balance(),
Yeah, that might make sense.
> and also taking max_load_balance_interval into account
> in the updates for next_balance in idle_balance()?
I was thinking that max_load_balance_interval thing was mostly about the
*busy_factor thing, but sure, can't hurt to be consistent and always do
it.
> If so, how about the something like the below change which also introduces
> get_sd_balance_interval() to obtain the sd's balance interval, and have both
> update_next_balance() and rebalance_domains() use that function.
Yes, that looks good.
Can you send it with a proper changelog?
--
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