lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched: Get rid of unnecessary checks from select_idle_sibling
Date
Hi Preeti,

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:51:00 +0530, Preeti U. Murthy wrote:
> On 01/09/2013 12:20 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@lge.com>
>>
>> AFAICS @target cpu of select_idle_sibling() is always either prev_cpu
>> or this_cpu. So no need to check it again and the conditionals can be
>> consolidated.
[snip]
> If NUMA_TTWU_BIAS or NUMA_TTWU_TO is true(it is false by

I can't find those bits in the code. I've checked v3.8-rc2,
next-20130110, tip/master and tip/numa/core but there's nothing like
above. Which tree are you saying?


> default),cpu/prev_cpu can be changed to be a random node_cpu(the node
> that 'this_cpu' is on). In which case even if the node cpu is idle,it
> would not be a viable target,looks like.Maybe that is why
> select_idle_sibling() makes the check if the target is prev_cpu/this cpu.

Looking into tip/numa/core, I can see that there's a code added for
CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING. But still, it seems nothing changed on a path
from select_task_rq_fair() to select_idle_sibling() - i.e. if the
select_idle_sibling called, the target would be either prev_cpu or this
cpu. Am I missing something?

Thanks,
Namhyung


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-10 07:21    [W:0.213 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site