linux-kernel - Re: sched: Improve load balancing in the presence of idle CPUs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150410083741.GB10331@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:07:41 +0530
From:	Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>
Cc:	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	"riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
	"vincent.guittot@...aro.org" <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	"pjt@...gle.com" <pjt@...gle.com>,
	"benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	"efault@....de" <efault@....de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"iamjoonsoo.kim@....com" <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	"svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com" <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: sched: Improve load balancing in the presence of idle CPUs

> > >
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> > > +static inline bool nohz_kick_needed(struct rq *rq);
> > > +
> > > +static inline void pass_nohz_balance(struct rq *this_rq, int this_cpu)
> > > +{
> > > +	clear_bit(NOHZ_BALANCE_KICK, nohz_flags(this_cpu));
> > > +	nohz.next_balance = jiffies;
> >
> > Why are we updating nohz.next_balance here?
>
> This was just to make sure that since we're continuing the balancing on
> another CPU that the nohz next_balance is guaranteed to be "now".
>

Since we are in nohz_idle_balance(), nohz.next_balance is guaranteed be
less than now. We do check for time_before(now, nohz.next_balance) in
nohz_kick_needed(). So in effect we are incrementing the nohz.next_balance.

While updating nohz.next_balance may not cause any issues, it atleast
look redundant to me.

At this point, I also wanted to understand why we do
"nohz.next_balance++" nohz_balancer_kick()?


> > > +	if (nohz_kick_needed(this_rq))
> > > +		nohz_balancer_kick();
> > > +}
> > > +
> > >  /*

--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar Dronamraju

--
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/