Re: [PATCH 01/50] sched: monolithic code dump of what is being pushed upstream

[Hillf Danton]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -5045,15 +5038,50 @@ static int need_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
>
>  static int active_load_balance_cpu_stop(void *data);
>
> +static int should_we_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> +{
> +       struct sched_group *sg = env->sd->groups;
> +       struct cpumask *sg_cpus, *sg_mask;
> +       int cpu, balance_cpu = -1;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * In the newly idle case, we will allow all the cpu's
> +        * to do the newly idle load balance.
> +        */
> +       if (env->idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE)
> +               return 1;
> +
> +       sg_cpus = sched_group_cpus(sg);
> +       sg_mask = sched_group_mask(sg);
> +       /* Try to find first idle cpu */
> +       for_each_cpu_and(cpu, sg_cpus, env->cpus) {
> +               if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, sg_mask) || !idle_cpu(cpu))
> +                       continue;
> +
> +               balance_cpu = cpu;
> +               break;
> +       }
> +
> +       if (balance_cpu == -1)
> +               balance_cpu = group_balance_cpu(sg);
> +
> +       /*
> +        * First idle cpu or the first cpu(busiest) in this sched group
> +        * is eligible for doing load balancing at this and above domains.
> +        */
> +       return balance_cpu != env->dst_cpu;

FYI: Here is a bug reported by Dave Chinner.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/10/1

And lets see if any changes in your SpecJBB results without it.

Hillf
--
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/