Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757212AbaJIO3a (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2014 10:29:30 -0400 Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]:58983 "EHLO mail-la0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752189AbaJIO3Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Oct 2014 10:29:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20141009141607.GR4750@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <1412684017-16595-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1412684017-16595-7-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <20141009141607.GR4750@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> From: Vincent Guittot Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 16:28:58 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 6/7] sched: replace capacity_factor by usage To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel , Preeti U Murthy , Morten Rasmussen , Kamalesh Babulal , Russell King - ARM Linux , LAK , Rik van Riel , Mike Galbraith , Nicolas Pitre , "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" , Daniel Lezcano , Dietmar Eggemann , Paul Turner , Benjamin Segall Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 9 October 2014 16:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:13:36PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> @@ -6214,17 +6178,21 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *sd >> >> /* >> * In case the child domain prefers tasks go to siblings >> + * first, lower the sg capacity to one so that we'll try >> * and move all the excess tasks away. We lower the capacity >> * of a group only if the local group has the capacity to fit >> + * these excess tasks, i.e. group_capacity > 0. The >> * extra check prevents the case where you always pull from the >> * heaviest group when it is already under-utilized (possible >> * with a large weight task outweighs the tasks on the system). >> */ >> if (prefer_sibling && sds->local && >> + group_has_capacity(env, &sds->local_stat)) { >> + if (sgs->sum_nr_running > 1) >> + sgs->group_no_capacity = 1; >> + sgs->group_capacity = min(sgs->group_capacity, >> + SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE); >> + } >> >> if (update_sd_pick_busiest(env, sds, sg, sgs)) { >> sds->busiest = sg; > >> @@ -6490,8 +6460,8 @@ static struct sched_group *find_busiest_group(struct lb_env *env) >> goto force_balance; >> >> /* SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE trumps SMP nice when underutilized */ >> - if (env->idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE && local->group_has_free_capacity && >> - !busiest->group_has_free_capacity) >> + if (env->idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE && group_has_capacity(env, local) && >> + busiest->group_no_capacity) >> goto force_balance; >> >> /* > > This is two calls to group_has_capacity() on the local group. Why not > compute once in update_sd_lb_stats()? mainly because of the place in the code, so it is not always used during load balance unlike group_no_capacity Now that i have said that, i just noticed that it's better to move the call to the last tested condition + if (env->idle == CPU_NEWLY_IDLE && busiest->group_no_capacity && + group_has_capacity(env, local)) -- 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/