Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762150Ab3IDHKI (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Sep 2013 03:10:08 -0400 Received: from g4t0015.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.18]:2263 "EHLO g4t0015.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755775Ab3IDHKG (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Sep 2013 03:10:06 -0400 Message-ID: <1378278601.3004.60.camel@j-VirtualBox> Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v4 3/3] sched: Periodically decay max cost of idle balance From: Jason Low To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, pjt@google.com, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mgorman@suse.de, riel@redhat.com, aswin@hp.com, scott.norton@hp.com, srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 00:10:01 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20130830101817.GE10002@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1377806736-3752-1-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com> <1377806736-3752-4-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com> <20130830101817.GE10002@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1422 Lines: 30 On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 12:18 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 01:05:36PM -0700, Jason Low wrote: > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > > index 58b0514..bba5a07 100644 > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > > @@ -1345,7 +1345,7 @@ ttwu_do_wakeup(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int wake_flags) > > > > if (rq->idle_stamp) { > > u64 delta = rq_clock(rq) - rq->idle_stamp; > > - u64 max = 2*rq->max_idle_balance_cost; > > + u64 max = 2*(sysctl_sched_migration_cost + rq->max_idle_balance_cost); > > You re-introduce sched_migration_cost here because max_idle_balance_cost > can now drop down to 0 again? Yes it was so that max_idle_balance_cost would be at least sched_migration_cost and that we would still skip idle_balance if avg_idle < sched_migration_cost. I also initially thought that adding sched_migration_cost would also account for the extra "costs" of idle balancing that are not accounted for in the time spent on each newidle load balance. Come to think of it though, sched_migration_cost might be too large when used in that context considering we're already using the max cost. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/