On 27 May 2014 15:45, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> 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.
ok, i'm going to move schedstat update at the right place
>
>
--
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/
