On Sat, 2014-04-26 at 16:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:54:14PM -0700, Jason Low wrote: > > Preeti mentioned that sd->balance_interval is changed during load_balance(). > > Should we also consider updating the interval in rebalance_domains() after > > calling load_balance(), > > Yeah, that might make sense. > > > and also taking max_load_balance_interval into account > > in the updates for next_balance in idle_balance()? > > I was thinking that max_load_balance_interval thing was mostly about the > *busy_factor thing, but sure, can't hurt to be consistent and always do > it. > > > If so, how about the something like the below change which also introduces > > get_sd_balance_interval() to obtain the sd's balance interval, and have both > > update_next_balance() and rebalance_domains() use that function. > > Yes, that looks good. > > Can you send it with a proper changelog?
Sure, I'll send a v2 patchset so that this applies with the other patches. I also think it would be beneficial to split this change into 2 patches (the 1st patch fixes commit e5fc6611, and the 2nd patch changes how next_balance gets updated). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
