[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160531104121.GJ3190@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 12:41:21 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, bsegall@...gle.com, pjt@...gle.com,
morten.rasmussen@....com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] sched: Clean up SD_BALANCE_WAKE flags in sched
domain build-up
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 09:31:32AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 11:21:46AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 09:11:37AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> > > The SD_BALANCE_WAKE is irrelevant in the contexts of these two removals,
> > > and in addition SD_BALANCE_WAKE is not and should not be set in any
> > > sched_domain flags so far.
> >
> > This Changelog doesn't make any sense...
>
> How? SD_BALANCE_WAKE is not in any sched_domain flags (sd->flags), even if
> it is, it is not used anywhere, no?
It is and it is. See select_task_fair_rq():
if (tmp->flags & sd_flags)
Now, as long as WAKE_AFFINE is also set, its hard to actually get into
the find_idlest_cpu() balancing, but if you clear all that you will
still get there.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists