lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched/fair: Fix the logic about active_balance in load_balance()
From
Date
Hi Dietmar,

I understand, thank you for your review and very detailed explanation.

Yours,
Qi Zheng

On 2020/8/3 下午3:36, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 02/08/2020 06:51, Qi Zheng wrote:
>> 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 {
>>
>
> Active balance is potentially already been done when we reach this code.
>
> See 'if (need_active_balance(&env))' and 'if (!busiest->active_balance)'
> further up.
>
> Here we only reset sd->balance_interval in case:
> (A) the last load balance wasn't an active one
> (B) the reason for the active load balance was:
> (1) asym packing
> (2) capacity of src_cpu is reduced compared to the one of dst_cpu
> (3) misfit handling
>
> (B) is done to not unnecessarily increase of balance interval, see
> commit 46a745d90585 ("sched/fair: Fix unnecessary increase of balance
> interval").
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-03 14:34    [W:0.054 / U:1.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site