lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [patch v7 16/21] sched: no balance for prefer_sibling in power scheduling
    Hi Alex,

    You can add my Reviewed-by for the below patch.

    Thanks

    Regards
    Preeti U Murthy

    On 04/04/2013 07:30 AM, Alex Shi wrote:
    > In power aware scheduling, we don't want to balance 'prefer_sibling'
    > groups just because local group has capacity.
    > If the local group has no tasks at the time, that is the power
    > balance hope so.
    >
    > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
    > ---
    > kernel/sched/fair.c | 6 +++++-
    > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
    >
    > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
    > index 0dd29f4..86221e7 100644
    > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
    > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
    > @@ -4762,8 +4762,12 @@ static inline void update_sd_lb_stats(struct lb_env *env,
    > * extra check prevents the case where you always pull from the
    > * heaviest group when it is already under-utilized (possible
    > * with a large weight task outweighs the tasks on the system).
    > + *
    > + * In power aware scheduling, we don't care load weight and
    > + * want not to pull tasks just because local group has capacity.
    > */
    > - if (prefer_sibling && !local_group && sds->this_has_capacity)
    > + if (prefer_sibling && !local_group && sds->this_has_capacity
    > + && env->flags & LBF_PERF_BAL)
    > sgs.group_capacity = min(sgs.group_capacity, 1UL);
    >
    > if (local_group) {
    >



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-05-06 06:01    [W:6.832 / U:0.000 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site