From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756538Ab0IRTJx (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Sep 2010 15:09:53 -0400 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:51816 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754766Ab0IRTCU (ORCPT ); Sat, 18 Sep 2010 15:02:20 -0400 X-Mailbox-Line: From gregkh@clark.site Sat Sep 18 12:00:01 2010 Message-Id: <20100918190001.817905520@clark.site> User-Agent: quilt/0.48-11.2 Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:59:09 -0700 From: Greg KH To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org Cc: stable-review@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Greg KH , Mike Galbraith Subject: [105/123] sched: Cleanup select_task_rq_fair() References: <20100918185724.290702750@clark.site> Content-Disposition: inline; filename=sched-cleanup-select_task_rq_fair.patch In-Reply-To: <20100918190024.GA14388@kroah.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Peter Zijlstra commit a50bde5130f65733142b32975616427d0ea50856 upstream Clean up the new affine to idle sibling bits while trying to grok them. Should not have any function differences. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Mike Galbraith LKML-Reference: <20091112145610.832503781@chello.nl> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar Signed-off-by: Mike Galbraith Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- kernel/sched_fair.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) --- a/kernel/sched_fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched_fair.c @@ -1384,6 +1384,41 @@ find_idlest_cpu(struct sched_group *grou } /* + * Try and locate an idle CPU in the sched_domain. + */ +static int +select_idle_sibling(struct task_struct *p, struct sched_domain *sd, int target) +{ + int cpu = smp_processor_id(); + int prev_cpu = task_cpu(p); + int i; + + /* + * If this domain spans both cpu and prev_cpu (see the SD_WAKE_AFFINE + * test in select_task_rq_fair) and the prev_cpu is idle then that's + * always a better target than the current cpu. + */ + if (target == cpu) { + if (!cpu_rq(prev_cpu)->cfs.nr_running) + target = prev_cpu; + } + + /* + * Otherwise, iterate the domain and find an elegible idle cpu. + */ + if (target == -1 || target == cpu) { + for_each_cpu_and(i, sched_domain_span(sd), &p->cpus_allowed) { + if (!cpu_rq(i)->cfs.nr_running) { + target = i; + break; + } + } + } + + return target; +} + +/* * sched_balance_self: balance the current task (running on cpu) in domains * that have the 'flag' flag set. In practice, this is SD_BALANCE_FORK and * SD_BALANCE_EXEC. @@ -1441,36 +1476,30 @@ select_task_rq_fair(struct rq *rq, struc } if (want_affine && (tmp->flags & SD_WAKE_AFFINE)) { - int candidate = -1, i; + int target = -1; + /* + * If both cpu and prev_cpu are part of this domain, + * cpu is a valid SD_WAKE_AFFINE target. + */ if (cpumask_test_cpu(prev_cpu, sched_domain_span(tmp))) - candidate = cpu; + target = cpu; /* - * Check for an idle shared cache. + * If there's an idle sibling in this domain, make that + * the wake_affine target instead of the current cpu. + * + * XXX: should we possibly do this outside of + * WAKE_AFFINE, in case the shared cache domain is + * smaller than the WAKE_AFFINE domain? */ - if (tmp->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING) { - if (candidate == cpu) { - if (!cpu_rq(prev_cpu)->cfs.nr_running) - candidate = prev_cpu; - } - - if (candidate == -1 || candidate == cpu) { - for_each_cpu(i, sched_domain_span(tmp)) { - if (!cpumask_test_cpu(i, &p->cpus_allowed)) - continue; - if (!cpu_rq(i)->cfs.nr_running) { - candidate = i; - break; - } - } - } - } + if (tmp->flags & SD_PREFER_SIBLING) + target = select_idle_sibling(p, tmp, target); - if (candidate >= 0) { + if (target >= 0) { affine_sd = tmp; want_affine = 0; - cpu = candidate; + cpu = target; } }