On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 12:10:01AM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 12:18 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 01:05:36PM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > index 58b0514..bba5a07 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > @@ -1345,7 +1345,7 @@ ttwu_do_wakeup(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct
> > > *p, int wake_flags)
> > >
> > > if (rq->idle_stamp) {
> > > u64 delta = rq_clock(rq) - rq->idle_stamp;
> > > - u64 max = 2*rq->max_idle_balance_cost;
> > > + u64 max = 2*(sysctl_sched_migration_cost +
> > > rq->max_idle_balance_cost);
> >
> > You re-introduce sched_migration_cost here because max_idle_balance_cost
> > can now drop down to 0 again?
>
> Yes it was so that max_idle_balance_cost would be at least
> sched_migration_cost
> and that we would still skip idle_balance if avg_idle < sched_migration_cost.
>
> I also initially thought that adding sched_migration_cost would also account
> for
> the extra "costs" of idle balancing that are not accounted for in the time
> spent
> on each newidle load balance. Come to think of it though, sched_migration_cost
> might be too large when used in that context considering we're already using
> the
> max cost.
Right, so shall we do as Srikar suggests and drop that initial check?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
