Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] sched: Move idle_stamp up to the core

[Preeti Murthy]

Hi Daniel,

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The idle_balance modifies the idle_stamp field of the rq, making this
> information to be shared across core.c and fair.c. As we can know if the
> cpu is going to idle or not with the previous patch, let's encapsulate the
> idle_stamp information in core.c by moving it up to the caller. The
> idle_balance function returns true in case a balancing occured and the cpu
> won't be idle, false if no balance happened and the cpu is going idle.
>
> Cc: mingo@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: alex.shi@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c  |   13 +++++++++++--
>  kernel/sched/fair.c  |   14 ++++++--------
>  kernel/sched/sched.h |    8 +-------
>  3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 16b97dd..428ee4c 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2704,8 +2704,17 @@ need_resched:
>
>         pre_schedule(rq, prev);
>
> -       if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running))
> -               idle_balance(rq);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +       if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running)) {
> +               /*
> +                * We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling idle_balance(), such
> +                * that we measure the duration of idle_balance() as idle time.

Should not this be "such that we *do not* measure the duration of idle_balance()
as idle time?"

Thanks

Regards
Preeti U Murthy
--
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/