[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dce1c131-d52d-4eec-276b-3a2eeefabb3d@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 12:47:21 +0200
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] sched/fair: Trigger nohz.next_balance updates when
a CPU goes NOHZ-idle
On 19/07/2021 18:28, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 19/07/21 17:24, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> On 19/07/2021 12:31, Valentin Schneider wrote:
[...]
>>> * Ensures that if we miss the CPU, we must see the has_blocked
>>> @@ -10531,6 +10540,8 @@ static void _nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned int flags,
>>> if (need_resched()) {
>>> if (flags & NOHZ_STATS_KICK)
>>> has_blocked_load = true;
>>
>> This looks weird now? 'has_blocked_load = true' vs
>> 'WRITE_ONCE(nohz.needs_update, 1)'.
>>
>
> Well, has_blocked_load lets us factorize the nohz.has_blocked write
> (one is needed either when aborting or at the tail of the cpumask
> iteration), whereas there is just a single write for nohz.needs_update
> (when aborting).
You're right. Looks good then.
[...]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists