Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752472AbYLIGfS (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:35:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751685AbYLIGfF (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:35:05 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:51034 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751445AbYLIGfE (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:35:04 -0500 Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 07:34:48 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Linux Kernel , Gautham R Shenoy , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [BUG] idle_balance() does not call load_balance_newidle() Message-ID: <20081209063448.GA17706@elte.hu> References: <20081208152249.GI5457@dirshya.in.ibm.com> <20081208154939.GA405@elte.hu> <20081209040706.GA20525@dirshya.in.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20081209040706.GA20525@dirshya.in.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1700 Lines: 47 * Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote: > * Ingo Molnar [2008-12-08 16:49:39]: > > > > > * Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > load_balance_newidle() does not get called if SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE is > > > set at higher level domain (3-CPU) and not in low level domain (2-MC). > > > > > > pulled_task is initialised to -1 and checked for non-zero which is > > > always true if the lowest level sched_domain does not have > > > SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE flag set. > > > > > > Trivial fix to initialise pulled_task to zero. > > > Patch against 2.6.28-rc7 > > > > applied to tip/sched/core, thanks! (Not for v2.6.28 because this could > > affect performance.) > > Thanks Ingo. This patch does not change any functionality in v2.6.28 > and hence will not affect performance. The SD flags are not touched. I > found this bug while setting different SD flags at MC level and CPU > level in my power saving balance patches. if it does not change any functionality then we would not be doing the change, right? It does change functionality, because: > > > load_balance_newidle() does not get called if SD_BALANCE_NEWIDLE is > > > set at higher level domain (3-CPU) and not in low level domain > > > (2-MC). even though it's a bug fix, it affects how the SD flags are interpreted and acted upon by the load balancer - i.e. the change can impact performance. Ingo -- 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/