On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 02:01:45PM +0530, Preeti Murthy wrote:
> Hi Jason, Peter,
>
> The below patch looks good to me except for one point.
>
> In idle_balance() the below code snippet does not look right:
>
> - if (pulled_task || time_after(jiffies, this_rq->next_balance)) {
> - /*
> - * We are going idle. next_balance may be set based on
> - * a busy processor. So reset next_balance.
> - */
> +out:
> + /* Move the next balance forward */
> + if (time_after(this_rq->next_balance, next_balance))
> this_rq->next_balance = next_balance;
> - }
>
> By not checking this_rq->next_balance against jiffies,
> we might end up not updating this parameter when it
> has expired.
>
> So shouldn't it be:
>
> if (time_after(jiffies, this_rq->next_balance) ||
> time_after(this_rq->next_balance, next_balance))
> this_rq->next_balance = next_balance;
So the reason I didn't do that is that nothing else does that either.
Also, note that the value we set rq->next_balance to might itself
already be expired. There is no guarantee that last_balance + interval
is in the future.
--
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/
