Re: [PATCH 02/10] sched: Factor out code to should_we_balance()

[Joonsoo Kim]

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:42:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >
> > > +redo:
> > 
> > One behavioral change worth noting here is that in the redo case if a
> > CPU has become idle we'll continue trying to load-balance in the
> > !new-idle case.
> > 
> > This could be unpleasant in the case where a package has a pinned busy
> > core allowing this and a newly idle cpu to start dueling for load.
> > 
> > While more deterministically bad in this case now, it could racily do
> > this before anyway so perhaps not worth worrying about immediately.
> 
> Ah, because the old code would effectively redo the check and find the
> idle cpu and thereby our cpu would no longer be the balance_cpu.
> 
> Indeed. And I don't think this was an intentional change. I'll go put
> the redo back before should_we_balance().

Ah, yes.
It isn't my intention. Please fix it.

Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/