lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch v7 16/21] sched: no balance for prefer_sibling in power scheduling
Hi Alex,

You can add my Reviewed-by for the below patch.

Thanks

Regards
Preeti U Murthy

On 04/04/2013 07:30 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
> In power aware scheduling, we don't want to balance 'prefer_sibling'
> groups just because local group has capacity.
> If the local group has no tasks at the time, that is the power
> balance hope so.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> index 0dd29f4..86221e7 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4762,8 +4762,12 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env,
> * extra check prevents the case where you always pull from the
> * heaviest group when it is already under-utilized (possible
> * with a large weight task outweighs the tasks on the system).
> + *
> + * In power aware scheduling, we don't care load weight and
> + * want not to pull tasks just because local group has capacity.
> */
> - if (prefer_sibling && !local_group && sds->this_has_capacity)
> + if (prefer_sibling && !local_group && sds->this_has_capacity
> + && env->flags & LBF_PERF_BAL)
> sgs.group_capacity = min(sgs.group_capacity, 1UL);
>
> if (local_group) {
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-05-06 06:01    [W:0.266 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site