lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 2/7] sched: move cfs task on a CPU with higher capacity
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:13:32PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -5896,6 +5896,18 @@ fix_small_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, struct sched_group *group)
> }
>
> /*
> + * Check whether the capacity of the rq has been noticeably reduced by side
> + * activity. The imbalance_pct is used for the threshold.
> + * Return true is the capacity is reduced
> + */
> +static inline int
> +check_cpu_capacity(struct rq *rq, struct sched_domain *sd)
> +{
> + return ((rq->cpu_capacity * sd->imbalance_pct) <
> + (rq->cpu_capacity_orig * 100));
> +}
> +
> +/*
> * Group imbalance indicates (and tries to solve) the problem where balancing
> * groups is inadequate due to tsk_cpus_allowed() constraints.
> *
> @@ -6567,6 +6579,14 @@ static int need_active_balance(struct lb_env *env)
> */
> if ((sd->flags & SD_ASYM_PACKING) && env->src_cpu > env->dst_cpu)
> return 1;
> +
> + /*
> + * The src_cpu's capacity is reduced because of other
> + * sched_class or IRQs, we trig an active balance to move the
> + * task
> + */
> + if (check_cpu_capacity(env->src_rq, sd))
> + return 1;
> }

So does it make sense to first check if there's a better candidate at
all? By this time we've already iterated the current SD while trying
regular load balancing, so we could know this.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-09 14:02    [W:0.144 / U:2.396 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site