Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756881AbaD1QnC (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:43:02 -0400 Received: from g4t3426.houston.hp.com ([15.201.208.54]:44000 "EHLO g4t3426.houston.hp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755802AbaD1Qm5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:42:57 -0400 Message-ID: <1398703372.2009.8.camel@j-VirtualBox> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched, balancing: Update rq->max_idle_balance_cost whenever newidle balance is attempted From: Jason Low To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Preeti U Murthy , mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, alex.shi@linaro.org, efault@gmx.de, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, aswin@hp.com, chegu_vinod@hp.com Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:42:52 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20140426145034.GL26782@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1398303035-18255-1-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com> <1398303035-18255-2-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com> <5358E417.8090503@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140424120415.GS11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20140424124438.GT13658@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1398358417.3509.11.camel@j-VirtualBox> <20140424171453.GZ11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <5359EDDB.4060409@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140425094331.GF26782@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1398455654.2102.29.camel@j-VirtualBox> <20140426145034.GL26782@laptop.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 On Sat, 2014-04-26 at 16:50 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:54:14PM -0700, Jason Low wrote: > > Preeti mentioned that sd->balance_interval is changed during load_balance(). > > Should we also consider updating the interval in rebalance_domains() after > > calling load_balance(), > > Yeah, that might make sense. > > > and also taking max_load_balance_interval into account > > in the updates for next_balance in idle_balance()? > > I was thinking that max_load_balance_interval thing was mostly about the > *busy_factor thing, but sure, can't hurt to be consistent and always do > it. > > > If so, how about the something like the below change which also introduces > > get_sd_balance_interval() to obtain the sd's balance interval, and have both > > update_next_balance() and rebalance_domains() use that function. > > Yes, that looks good. > > Can you send it with a proper changelog? Sure, I'll send a v2 patchset so that this applies with the other patches. I also think it would be beneficial to split this change into 2 patches (the 1st patch fixes commit e5fc6611, and the 2nd patch changes how next_balance gets updated). -- 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/