On 01/14/2013 03:13 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> 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.
Yes, thanks for suggestion!
>
>>>
>>> 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? ;-)
hard to the ward in google. are you sure it is better than leader_cpu? :)
>
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
>
--
Thanks Alex
--
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/
