Re: [PATCH 4/8] sched: clean up move_task() and move_one_task()
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Mar 20 2013 - 07:17:03 EST
On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 16:33 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > Right, so I'm not so taken with this one. The whole load stuff really
> > is a balance heuristic that's part of move_tasks(), move_one_task()
> > really doesn't care about that.
> > So why did you include it? Purely so you didn't have to re-order the
> > tests? I don't see any reason not to flip a tests around.
> I think that I'm not fully understand what you are concerning, because of
> my poor English. If possible, please elaborate on a problem in more detail.
OK, so your initial Changelog said it wanted to remove some code
duplication between move_tasks() and move_one_task(); but then you put
in the load heuristics and add a boolean argument to only enable those
for move_tasks() -- so clearly that wasn't duplicated.
So why move that code.. I proposed that this was due a reluctance to
re-arrange the various tests that stop the migration from happening.
Now you say:
> ... Just moving up can_migrate_task() above
> load evaluation code may raise side effect, because can_migrate_task() have
> other checking which is 'cache hottness'. I don't want a side effect. So
> embedding load evaluation to can_migrate_task() and re-order checking and
> makes load evaluation disabled for move_one_task().
Which pretty much affirms this. However I also said that I don't think
the order really matters that much; each test will cancel the migration
of this task; the order of these tests seem immaterial.
> If your recommandation is to move up can_mirate_task() above
> load evaluation code, yes, I can, and will do that. :)
I would actually propose
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/