[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150327070008.GA5496@kernel>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:00:08 +0800
From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, riel@...hat.com,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
pjt@...gle.com, benh@...nel.crashing.org, efault@....de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] sched: Improve load balancing in the presence of idle
CPUs
Hi Srikar,
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:09:07AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
>Yes, the need_resched() in nohz_idle_balance() would exit the
>nohz_idle_balance if it has something to run. However I wonder if we
>should move the need_resched check out of the for loop. i.e the
>need_resched check should probably be there with the idle check.
>
>With the current code when the ilb cpus are not free:
>- We would be updating the nohz.next_balance even through we havent done
> any load balance.
>- We might iterate thro the nohz.idle_cpus_mask()s to find balance_cpus.
Good idea, the nohz load balance will be delay since nohz.next_balance is
updated inapposite when current ILB just be busy. I will send a patch to
fix it. ;)
Regards,
Wanpeng Li
--
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