Commit 1e2ea8a1 authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra Committed by Thomas Gleixner

sched: Deal with low-load in wake_affine()

wake_affine() would always fail under low-load situations where
both prev and this were idle, because adding a single task will
always be a significant imbalance, even if there's nothing
around that could balance it.
    
Deal with this by allowing imbalance when there's nothing you
can do about it.
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDinakar Guniguntala <dino@in.ibm.com>
Cc: John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Darren Hart <dvhltc@us.ibm.com>
Cc: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
parent cddfcb89
......@@ -1264,7 +1264,17 @@ wake_affine(struct sched_domain *this_sd, struct rq *this_rq,
tg = task_group(p);
weight = p->se.load.weight;
balanced = 100*(tl + effective_load(tg, this_cpu, weight, weight)) <=
/*
* In low-load situations, where prev_cpu is idle and this_cpu is idle
* due to the sync cause above having dropped tl to 0, we'll always have
* an imbalance, but there's really nothing you can do about that, so
* that's good too.
*
* Otherwise check if either cpus are near enough in load to allow this
* task to be woken on this_cpu.
*/
balanced = !tl ||
100*(tl + effective_load(tg, this_cpu, weight, weight)) <=
imbalance*(load + effective_load(tg, prev_cpu, 0, weight));
/*
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment