[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1402690624.2970.567.camel@schen9-DESK>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:17:04 -0700
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Davidlohr Bueson <davidlohr@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Fast idling of CPU when system is partially
loaded
On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 12:18 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
>
> I see. In that case, if a CPU is going idle, it still needs to call
> idle_balance() to update rq->idle_stamp and rq->next_balance (even if we
> skip calling the expensive load_balance).
>
> What do you think about moving the overload check to the top of
> idle_balance():
>
> this_rq->idle_stamp = rq_clock(this_rq);
>
> - if (this_rq->avg_idle < sysctl_sched_migration_cost) {
> + if (this_rq->avg_idle < sysctl_sched_migration_cost ||
> + !this_rq->rd->overload) {
> rcu_read_lock();
> sd = rcu_dereference_check_sched_domain(this_rq->sd);
> if (sd)
>
>
That's a good point. I think moving the check as you suggested
is appropriate. I'll update the code in my next version.
Tim
--
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