Hi Daniel,
On 02/11/2014 05:37 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 02/10/2014 11:04 AM, Preeti Murthy wrote:
Hi Daniel,
On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 4:40 AM, Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezcano@linaro.org wrote:
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: mingo@kernel.org Cc: alex.shi@linaro.org Cc: peterz@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezcano@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra peterz@infradead.org
kernel/sched/core.c | 13 +++++++++++-- kernel/sched/fair.c | 14 ++++++-------- kernel/sched/sched.h | 8 +------- 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c index 16b97dd..428ee4c 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/core.c +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c @@ -2704,8 +2704,17 @@ need_resched:
pre_schedule(rq, prev);
if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running))idle_balance(rq);+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
if (unlikely(!rq->nr_running)) {/** We must set idle_stamp _before_ callingidle_balance(), such
* that we measure the duration of idle_balance() asidle time.
Should not this be "such that we *do not* measure the duration of idle_balance() as idle time?"
Actually, the initial code was including the idle balance time processing in the idle stamp. When I moved the idle stamp in core.c, idle balance was no longer measured (an unwanted change). That has been fixed and to prevent that to occur again, we added a comment.
Oh sorry! Yes you are right.
Thanks
Regards Preeti U Murthy