On 30 May 2014 15:26, Dietmar Eggemann dietmar.eggemann@arm.com wrote:
On 23/05/14 16:53, Vincent Guittot wrote:
If the CPU is used for handling lot of IRQs, trig a load balance to check if it's worth moving its tasks on another CPU that has more capacity
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot vincent.guittot@linaro.org
kernel/sched/fair.c | 13 +++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index e8a30f9..2501e49 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @@ -5948,6 +5948,13 @@ static bool update_sd_pick_busiest(struct lb_env *env, if (sgs->sum_nr_running > sgs->group_capacity) return true;
/** The group capacity is reduced probably because of activity from otherHere 'group capacity' refers to sgs->group_power and not to sgs->group_capacity, right?
yes, you're right it's cpu_power, i will correct the comment
* sched class or interrupts which use part of the available capacity*/... 'interrupts' only w/ CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING=y, right ?
yes, we need CONFIG_IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING in order to scale the cpu_power with time spent under irq. I have made test with and without this config to show impact (in the cover letter)
Thanks Vincent
if ((sg->sgp->power_orig * 100) > (sgs->group_power * env->sd->imbalance_pct))return true;[...]
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/