Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:04:15 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched, balancing: Update rq->max_idle_balance_cost whenever newidle balance is attempted |
| |
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 03:44:47PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote: > What about the update of next_balance field? See the code snippet below. > This will also be skipped as a consequence of the commit e5fc6611 right? > > if (pulled_task || time_after(jiffies, this_rq->next_balance)) { > /* > * We are going idle. next_balance may be set based on > * a busy processor. So reset next_balance. > */ > this_rq->next_balance = next_balance; > } > > Also the comment in the above snippet does not look right to me. > It says "we are going idle" but the condition checks for pulled_task.
Yeah, that's odd indeed. Ingo did that back in dd41f596cda0d, I suspect its an error, but..
So I think that should become !pulled_task || time_after().
| |