[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1400634953.26709.42.camel@joe-AO725>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 18:15:53 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Russ Anderson <rja@....com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
Hedi Berriche <hedi@....com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Reduce the rate of needless idle load balancing
On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 14:04 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 13:59 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 13:51 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
[]
> > > If we want to do idle load balancing only when it is due for a
> > > balance, shouldn't the above just be "if (time_after(jiffies,
> > > rq->next_balance))"?
> >
> > If rq->next_balance and jiffies are equal, then
> > time_after(jiffies, rq->next_balance) check will be false and
> > you will not do balance. But actually you want to balance
> > for this case so the jiffies+1 was used.
>
> So maybe I should switch the check to
> if (time_before(rq->next_balance, jiffies))
time_after_eq() or time_is_after_eq_jiffies()
--
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