On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 05:52:56PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 9587ed1..30240ab 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4238,7 +4238,6 @@ static int wake_affine(struct sched_domain *sd, struct
> task_struct *p, int sync)
> {
> s64 this_load, load;
> int idx, this_cpu, prev_cpu;
> - unsigned long tl_per_task;
> struct task_group *tg;
> unsigned long weight;
> int balanced;
> @@ -4296,32 +4295,22 @@ static int wake_affine(struct sched_domain *sd,
> struct task_struct *p, int sync)
> balanced = this_eff_load <= prev_eff_load;
> } else
> balanced = true;
> + schedstat_inc(p, se.statistics.nr_wakeups_affine_attempts);
>
> + if (!balanced)
> + return 0;
> /*
> * If the currently running task will sleep within
> * a reasonable amount of time then attract this newly
> * woken task:
> */
> + if (sync)
> return 1;
>
> + schedstat_inc(sd, ttwu_move_affine);
> + schedstat_inc(p, se.statistics.nr_wakeups_affine);
>
> + return 1;
> }
So I'm not usually one for schedstat nitpicking, but should we fix it in
the sync case? That is, for sync we return 1 but do no inc
nr_wakeups_affine, even though its going to be an affine wakeup.
--
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/
