From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Lei Wen <adrian.wenl@gmail.com>
Cc: Lei Wen <leiwen@marvell.com>,
mingo@redhat.com, preeti.lkml@gmail.com,
daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
xjian@marvell.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: keep quiescent cpu out of idle balance loop
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 09:50:17 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140220085017.GL6835@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALZhoSQpbJGSEaoOKO_sQQNFBU9UHYQ4bPCXEFfAz=iUm+D7_g@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:42:51AM +0800, Lei Wen wrote:
> >> - int ilb = cpumask_first(nohz.idle_cpus_mask);
> >> + int ilb;
> >> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> >> + struct sched_domain *tmp;
> >>
> >> - if (ilb < nr_cpu_ids && idle_cpu(ilb))
> >> - return ilb;
> >> + for_each_domain(cpu, tmp) {
> >> + ilb = cpumask_first_and(nohz.idle_cpus_mask,
> >> + sched_domain_span(tmp));
> >> + if (ilb < nr_cpu_ids && idle_cpu(ilb))
> >> + return ilb;
> >> + }
> >
> > The ILB code is bad; but you just made it horrible. Don't add pointless
> > for_each_domain() iterations.
> >
> > I'm thinking something like:
> >
> > ilb = cpumask_first_and(nohz.idle_cpus_mask, this_rq()->rd.span);
> >
> > Should work just fine, no?
>
> Yes, it has the same result as my previous patch did.
>
> >
> > Better still would be to maybe not participate in the ILB in the first
> > place and leave this selection loop alone.
>
> Not quitely get your point here...
> Do you mean that you want idle cpu selection be put in earlier place
> than current find_new_ilb is?
I meant that if you stop an idle CPU setting its bit in
nohz.idle_cpus_mask, you don't have to mask it out either.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-20 8:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-19 5:20 [PATCH] sched: keep quiescent cpu out of idle balance loop Lei Wen
2014-02-19 9:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-20 2:42 ` Lei Wen
2014-02-20 8:50 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2014-02-20 9:15 ` Lei Wen
2014-02-20 9:17 ` Lei Wen
2014-02-20 12:04 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-20 12:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-02-21 2:23 ` [PATCH v2] " Lei Wen
2014-02-21 5:51 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-02-21 7:28 ` Lei Wen
2014-02-21 8:34 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-02-21 9:15 ` [PATCH v3] " Lei Wen
2014-02-21 9:41 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-02-21 9:15 ` [PATCH v2] " Mike Galbraith
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=20140220085017.GL6835@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=adrian.wenl@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=leiwen@marvell.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=preeti.lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=xjian@marvell.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