[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1427940712.2556.14.camel@j-VirtualBox>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 19:11:52 -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:
> On 03/31/2015 12:25 AM, Jason Low wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index fdae26e..ba8ec1a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -7644,7 +7644,7 @@ static void nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, enum cpu_idle_type idle)
> > * balancing owner will pick it up.
> > */
> > if (need_resched())
> > - break;
> > + goto end;
>
> Why is this hunk needed?
In terms of the change in the need_resched() case, if the current CPU
doesn't complete iterating all of the CPUs, then this will make it not
update nohz.next_balance. This is so we can continue the balancing with
the next balancing owner without too much delay.
--
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