[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210108130110.cj3zqsnjdt5mg3uz@e107158-lin>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2021 13:01:10 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
valentin.schneider@....com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com, benbjiang@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/5] sched/fair: Fix select_idle_cpu()s cost
accounting
On 01/08/21 10:27, Mel Gorman wrote:
> for_each_cpu_wrap(cpu, cpus, target) {
> - if (available_idle_cpu(cpu) || sched_idle_cpu(cpu))
> + if (available_idle_cpu(cpu) || sched_idle_cpu(cpu)) {
> + /* Adjust cost of a successful scan */
> + loops <<= 2;
> +
> break;
> + }
>
> - if (loops >= nr) {
> + if (++loops >= nr) {
> cpu = -1;
> break;
> }
> - loops++;
Random (out of the blue) comment.
Now this will increment loops before the comparison/break. ie: we're
effectively doing one iteration less IIRC. Should loops be initialized to
0 instead of 1?
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
Powered by blists - more mailing lists