[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1427828056.2492.24.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 11:54:16 -0700
From: Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
To: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, riel@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
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, jason.low2@...com
Subject: Re: sched: Improve load balancing in the presence of idle CPUs
On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 14:07 +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> On 03/31/2015 12:25 AM, Jason Low wrote:
> > Hi Preeti,
> >
> > I noticed that another commit 4a725627f21d converted the check in
> > nohz_kick_needed() from idle_cpu() to rq->idle_balance, causing a
> > potentially outdated value to be used if this cpu is able to pull tasks
> > using rebalance_domains(), and nohz_kick_needed() directly returning
> > false.
>
> I see that rebalance_domains() will be run at the end of the scheduler
> tick interrupt handling. trigger_load_balance() only sets the softirq,
> it does not call rebalance_domains() immediately. So the call graph
> would be:
Oh right, since that only sets the softirq, this wouldn't be the issue,
though we would need these changes if we were to incorporate any sort of
nohz_kick_needed() logic into the nohz_idle_balance() code path correct?
--
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