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

[Davidlohr Bueso]

On Wed, 2014-05-21 at 09:37 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 18:15 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 14:04 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 13:59 -0700, Tim Chen 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
> > []
> > > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > So maybe I should switch the check to 
> > > if (time_before(rq->next_balance, jiffies))
> > 
> > time_after_eq() or time_is_after_eq_jiffies()
> > 
> > 
> 
> I prefer time_after_eq to keep the code style consistent with the
> rest of the code in fair.c.

Should all the code be updated then? We should use the existing
interfaces if available.

--
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/