On Mon, 2014-04-28 at 15:45 -0700, Jason Low wrote: > Currently, in idle_balance(), we update rq->next_balance when we pull_tasks. > However, it is also important to update this in the !pulled_tasks case too. > > When the CPU is "busy" (the CPU isn't idle), rq->next_balance gets computed > using sd->busy_factor (so we increase the balance interval when the CPU is > busy). However, when the CPU goes idle, rq->next_balance could still be set > to a large value that was computed with the sd->busy_factor. > > Thus, we need to also update rq->next_balance in idle_balance() in the cases > where !pulled_tasks too, so that rq->next_balance gets updated without taking > the busy_factor into account when the CPU is about to go idle. > > This patch makes rq->next_balance get updated independently of whether or > not we pulled_task. Also, we add logic to ensure that we always traverse > at least 1 of the sched domains to get a proper next_balance value for > updating rq->next_balance. > > Additionally, since load_balance() modifies the sd->balance_interval, we > need to re-obtain the sched domain's interval after the call to > load_balance() in rebalance_domains() before we update rq->next_balance. > > This patch adds and uses 2 new helper functions, update_next_balance() and > get_sd_balance_interval() to update next_balance and obtain the sched > domain's balance_interval.
Hi Peter, I noticed that patch 1 is in tip, but not this patch 2. I was wondering what the current status with this [PATCH 2/2] is at the moment. -- 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/
