Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Diwakar Tundlam <> | Date | Tue, 31 Jan 2012 11:15:19 -0800 | Subject | RE: Fix bug: Scheduler's idle-load-balancer not running in first 5 mins after bootup |
| |
>> Shouldn't that really be INITIAL_JIFFIES + HZ? That may work as well. I was modeling the change after similar initialization of the 'next_balance' field in each rq which is done a few lines earlier. And nohz.next_balance follows rq->next_balance.
-----Original Message----- From: Mike Galbraith [mailto:efault@gmx.de] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 7:49 PM To: Diwakar Tundlam Cc: 'Ingo Molnar'; 'Peter Zijlstra'; 'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'; Peter De Schrijver; Antti Miettinen; Matthew Longnecker; Kevin Kranzusch Subject: Re: Fix bug: Scheduler's idle-load-balancer not running in first 5 mins after bootup
On Mon, 2012-01-30 at 10:14 -0800, Diwakar Tundlam wrote: > We ran into this at Nvidia. QA filed a bug saying coremark_4pthreads scores lower (as if running on 3 cores) when run shortly after bootup. But later its score increases to expected values on 4 cores. > > This patch is relevant to linux-2.6.39 but I noticed this fix is not made in linux-3.0, 3.1, 3.2 or 3.3 also. > > Please see commit log for more details of the problem and fix. > > Thanks, > Diwakar. > Tegra Android Kernel SW Engg. > NVIDIA. > Santa Clara, CA > > commit d04d7ef0e3f8c70bd6cd5abb2abc0236aa8d1f7c > Author: Diwakar Tundlam <dtundlam@nvidia.com> > Date: Wed Jan 18 18:58:57 2012 -0800 > > scheduler: domain: init next_balance in nohz_idle_balancer with jiffies > > The next_balance parameter of nohz_idle_balancer should be initialized > to jiffies since jiffies itself is initialized to 300 seconds shy of > overflow. Otherwise, nohz_idle_balancer does not run for the first 5 > mins after bootup. > > Signed-off-by: Diwakar Tundlam <dtundlam@nvidia.com> > Reviewed-by: Aleksandr Frid <afrid@nvidia.com> > Reviewed-by: Peter Boonstoppel <pboonstoppel@nvidia.com> > Reviewed-by: Satya Popuri <spopuri@nvidia.com> > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c index c5b09f7..506c5da 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched.c > +++ b/kernel/sched.c > @@ -8288,6 +8288,7 @@ void __init sched_init(void) > atomic_set(&nohz.load_balancer, nr_cpu_ids); > atomic_set(&nohz.first_pick_cpu, nr_cpu_ids); > atomic_set(&nohz.second_pick_cpu, nr_cpu_ids); > + nohz.next_balance = jiffies; > #endif > /* May be allocated at isolcpus cmdline parse time */ > if (cpu_isolated_map == NULL)
Shouldn't that really be INITIAL_JIFFIES + HZ?
-Mike
| |