public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, pjt@google.com,
	bsegall@google.com, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] sched: Move idle_stamp up to the core
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:58:22 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140123125822.GX31570@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140121112258.410353740@infradead.org>

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 12:17:57PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> 
> The idle_balance modifies the idle_stamp field of the rq, making this
> information to be shared across core.c and fair.c. As we can know if the
> cpu is going to idle or not with the previous patch, let's encapsulate the
> idle_stamp information in core.c by moving it up to the caller. The
> idle_balance function returns true in case a balancing occured and the cpu
> won't be idle, false if no balance happened and the cpu is going idle.
> 
> Cc: alex.shi@linaro.org
> Cc: peterz@infradead.org
> Cc: mingo@kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1389949444-14821-3-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org
> ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c  |    2 +-
>  kernel/sched/fair.c  |   14 ++++++--------
>  kernel/sched/sched.h |    2 +-
>  3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2680,7 +2680,7 @@ static void __sched __schedule(void)
>  	pre_schedule(rq, prev);
>  
>  	if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running))
> -		idle_balance(rq);
> +		rq->idle_stamp = idle_balance(rq) ? 0 : rq_clock(rq);

OK, spotted a problem here..

So previously idle_stamp was set _before_ actually doing idle_balance(),
and that was RIGHT, because that way we include the cost of actually
doing idle_balance() into the idle time.

By not including the cost of idle_balance() you underestimate the 'idle'
time in that if idle_balance() filled the entire idle time we account 0
idle, even though we had 'plenty' of time to run the entire thing.

This leads to not running idle_balance() even though we have the time
for it.

So we very much want something like:


  if (!rq->nr_running)
  	rq->idle_stamp = rq_clock(rq);

  p = pick_next_task(rq, prev);

  if (!is_idle_task(p))
  	rq->idle_stamp = 0;



  reply	other threads:[~2014-01-23 12:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-01-21 11:17 [PATCH 0/9] Various sched patches Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-21 11:17 ` [PATCH 1/9] sched: Remove cpu parameter for idle_balance() Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-21 11:17 ` [PATCH 2/9] sched: Fix race in idle_balance() Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-21 11:17 ` [PATCH 3/9] sched: Move idle_stamp up to the core Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-23 12:58   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-01-23 14:39     ` Daniel Lezcano
2014-01-23 15:23       ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-21 11:17 ` [PATCH 4/9] sched: Clean up idle task SMP logic Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-21 17:27   ` Vincent Guittot
2014-01-23 11:37     ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-23 14:52       ` Vincent Guittot
2014-01-21 11:17 ` [PATCH 5/9] sched/fair: Track cgroup depth Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-21 11:18 ` [PATCH 6/9] sched: Push put_prev_task() into pick_next_task() Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-21 21:46   ` bsegall
2014-01-21 11:18 ` [PATCH 7/9] sched/fair: Clean up __clear_buddies_* Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-21 11:18 ` [PATCH 8/9] sched/fair: Optimize cgroup pick_next_task_fair Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-21 19:24   ` bsegall
2014-01-21 19:37     ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-21 20:03       ` bsegall
2014-01-21 20:43         ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-21 21:43           ` bsegall
2014-01-22 18:06             ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-21 11:18 ` [PATCH 9/9] sched: Use idle task shortcut Peter Zijlstra
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-01-28 17:16 [PATCH 0/9] Various sched patches -v2 Peter Zijlstra
2014-01-28 17:16 ` [PATCH 3/9] sched: Move idle_stamp up to the core Peter Zijlstra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20140123125822.GX31570@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=jason.low2@hp.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox