Re: [PATCH] sched: Reduce the rate of needless idle load balancing

[Jason Low]

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 13:51 -0700, Jason Low wrote:
>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > index 9b4c4f3..97132db 100644
>> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> > @@ -6764,12 +6764,17 @@ static void nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq, enum cpu_idle_type idle)
>> >
>> >                 rq = cpu_rq(balance_cpu);
>> >
>> > -               raw_spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
>> > -               update_rq_clock(rq);
>> > -               update_idle_cpu_load(rq);
>> > -               raw_spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
>> > -
>> > -               rebalance_domains(rq, CPU_IDLE);
>> > +               /*
>> > +                * If time for next balance is due,
>> > +                * do the balance.
>> > +                */
>> > +               if (time_after(jiffies + 1, rq->next_balance)) {
>>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> If we want to do idle load balancing only when it is due for a
>> balance, shouldn't the above just be "if (time_after(jiffies,
>> rq->next_balance))"?
>
> If rq->next_balance and jiffies are equal, then
> time_after(jiffies, rq->next_balance) check will be false and
> you will not do balance.  But actually you want to balance
> for this case so the jiffies+1 was used.

Hi Tim, Rik

Yes, that makes sense that we want to balance if they are equal. We
may also consider using "if (time_after_eq(jiffies,
rq->next_balance)".

Reviewed-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@xxxxxx>
--
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/