Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Qi Zheng <arch0.zheng@gmail.com>
To:     mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Qi Zheng <arch0.zheng@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix the logic about active_balance in load_balance()
Date:   Sun,  2 Aug 2020 12:51:41 +0800
Message-Id: <20200802045141.130533-1-arch0.zheng@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

I think the unbalance scenario here should be that we need to
do active balance but it is not actually done. So fix it.

Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <arch0.zheng@gmail.com>
---
 kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 2ba8f230feb9..6d8c53718b67 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -9710,7 +9710,7 @@ static int load_balance(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq,
 	} else
 		sd->nr_balance_failed = 0;
 
-	if (likely(!active_balance) || voluntary_active_balance(&env)) {
+	if (likely(!active_balance) && voluntary_active_balance(&env)) {
 		/* We were unbalanced, so reset the balancing interval */
 		sd->balance_interval = sd->min_interval;
 	} else {
-- 
2.25.1