On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:47:03 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 01/11/2013 01:17 AM, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 08:37:46AM +0000, Alex Shi wrote:
>>> If the wake/exec task is small enough, utils < 12.5%, it will
>>> has the chance to be packed into a cpu which is busy but still has space to
>>> handle it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex....@intel.com>
>>> ---
[snip]
>> I may be missing something, but could the expression be something like
>> the below instead?
>>
>> Create a putil < 12.5% check before the loop. There is no reason to
>> recheck it every iteration. Then:
Agreed. Also suggest that the checking local cpu can also be moved
before the loop so that it can be used without going through the loop if
it's vacant enough.
>>
>> vacancy = FULL_UTIL - (rq->util + putil)
>>
>> should be enough?
>>
>>> +
>>> + /* bias toward local cpu */
>>> + if (vacancy > 0 && (i == this_cpu))
>>> + return i;
>>> +
>>> + if (vacancy > 0 && vacancy < min_vacancy) {
>>> + min_vacancy = vacancy;
>>> + idlest = i;
>>
>> "idlest" may be a bit misleading here as you actually select busiest cpu
>> that have enough spare capacity to take the task.
>
> Um, change to leader_cpu?
vacantest? ;-)
Thanks,
Namhyung
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
