On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 10:17 +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote: > On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 06:59:07AM +0100, Jason Low wrote:
> > Also, below is an example patch. > > > > (Without the conversion to idle_cpu(), the check for rq->idle_balance > > would not be accurate anymore) > I think this should reduce the latency Preeti is seeing and avoid > unnecessary wake-ups, however, it may not be quite as aggressive in > spreading tasks quickly. It will stop the chain-of-kicks as soon as the > balancer cpu has pulled only one task. The source cpu may still be > having two tasks and other cpus may still have more than two tasks > running. Yeah, good point. I'll wait and see if Preeti finds this to improve scheduling behavior. If this only helps a little though, we can also try to make it more aggressive in spreading tasks. > Depending on how bad it is, we could consider kicking another cpu if the > imbalance is still significant after the balancer cpu has pulled a task. -- 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/
