Re: [PATCH v7 2/7] sched: move cfs task on a CPU with higher capacity

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:13:32PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -5896,6 +5896,18 @@ fix_small_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, struct sched_group *group)
>  }
>  
>  /*
> + * Check whether the capacity of the rq has been noticeably reduced by side
> + * activity. The imbalance_pct is used for the threshold.
> + * Return true is the capacity is reduced
> + */
> +static inline int
> +check_cpu_capacity(struct rq *rq, struct sched_domain *sd)
> +{
> +	return ((rq->cpu_capacity * sd->imbalance_pct) <
> +				(rq->cpu_capacity_orig * 100));
> +}
> +
> +/*
>   * Group imbalance indicates (and tries to solve) the problem where balancing
>   * groups is inadequate due to tsk_cpus_allowed() constraints.
>   *
> @@ -6567,6 +6579,14 @@ static int need_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
>  		 */
>  		if ((sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING) && env->src_cpu > env->dst_cpu)
>  			return 1;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * The src_cpu's capacity is reduced because of other
> +		 * sched_class or IRQs, we trig an active balance to move the
> +		 * task
> +		 */
> +		if (check_cpu_capacity(env->src_rq, sd))
> +			return 1;
>  	}

So does it make sense to first check if there's a better candidate at
all? By this time we've already iterated the current SD while trying
regular load balancing, so we could know this.


--
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/