Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched, balancing: Update rq->max_idle_balance_cost whenever newidle balance is attempted

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 03:44:47PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
> What about the update of next_balance field? See the code snippet below.
> This will also be skipped as a consequence of the commit e5fc6611 right?
> 
> 	   if (pulled_task || time_after(jiffies, this_rq->next_balance)) {
>                  /*
>                   * We are going idle. next_balance may be set based on
>                   * a busy processor. So reset next_balance.
>                   */
>                  this_rq->next_balance = next_balance;
>          }
> 
> Also the comment in the above snippet does not look right to me.
> It says "we are going idle" but the condition checks for pulled_task.

Yeah, that's odd indeed. Ingo did that back in dd41f596cda0d, I suspect
its an error, but..

So I think that should become !pulled_task || time_after().
--
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/