On 20 December 2017 at 15:27, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guit...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 20 December 2017 at 15:09, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 06:01:56PM +0000, Brendan Jackman wrote:
>>
>>> @@ -9210,7 +9256,15 @@ static void nohz_idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq,
>>> enum cpu_idle_type idle)
>>> cpu_load_update_idle(rq);
>>> rq_unlock_irq(rq, &rf);
>>>
>>> - rebalance_domains(rq, CPU_IDLE);
>>> + update_blocked_averages(balance_cpu);
>>> + /*
>>> + * This idle load balance softirq may have been
>>> + * triggered only to update the blocked load and
>>> shares
>>> + * of idle CPUs (which we have just done for
>>> + * balance_cpu). In that case skip the actual balance.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!in_nohz_stats_kick(this_cpu))
>>> + rebalance_domains(rq, idle);
>>> }
>>>
>>> if (time_after(next_balance, rq->next_balance)) {
>>
>>> @@ -9336,7 +9396,12 @@ static __latent_entropy void
>>> run_rebalance_domains(struct softirq_action *h)
>>> * and abort nohz_idle_balance altogether if we pull some load.
>>> */
>>> nohz_idle_balance(this_rq, idle);
>>> - rebalance_domains(this_rq, idle);
>>> + update_blocked_averages(this_rq->cpu);
>>> + if (!in_nohz_stats_kick(this_rq->cpu))
>>> + rebalance_domains(this_rq, idle);
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
>>> + clear_bit(NOHZ_STATS_KICK, nohz_flags(this_rq->cpu));
>>> +#endif
>>> }
>>>
>>> /*
>>
>> You're doing the same thing to both (all) callsites of
>> rebalance_domains(), does that not suggest doing it inside and leaving
>> update_blocked_averages() where it is?
>
> The goal of moving update_blocked_averages() outside rebalance_domains
> is to not add a new parameter or use a special cpu_idle_type value in
> rebalance_domains parameters in order to abort the rebalance sequence
> just after updating blocked load
Peter,
Is the reason above reasonable or you prefer update_blocked_averages
to stay in rebalance_domains ?
>
>>
>>
