diff options
| author | Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com> | 2014-04-28 15:45:54 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> | 2014-05-07 11:51:36 +0200 |
| commit | 0e5b5337f0da073e1f17aec3c322ea7826975d0d (patch) | |
| tree | 3f47f8935bb09d489614f5d86421c84f92a40e73 | |
| parent | 6ccdc84b81a0a6c09a7f0427761d2f8cecfc2218 (diff) | |
| download | linux-0e5b5337f0da073e1f17aec3c322ea7826975d0d.tar.gz linux-0e5b5337f0da073e1f17aec3c322ea7826975d0d.tar.bz2 linux-0e5b5337f0da073e1f17aec3c322ea7826975d0d.zip | |
sched: Fix updating rq->max_idle_balance_cost and rq->next_balance in idle_balance()
The following commit:
e5fc66119ec9 ("sched: Fix race in idle_balance()")
can potentially cause rq->max_idle_balance_cost to not be updated,
even when load_balance(NEWLY_IDLE) is attempted and the per-sd
max cost value is updated.
Preeti noticed a similar issue with updating rq->next_balance.
In this patch, we fix this by making sure we still check/update those values
even if a task gets enqueued while browsing the domains.
Signed-off-by: Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>
Reviewed-by: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com
Cc: aswin@hp.com
Cc: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org
Cc: alex.shi@linaro.org
Cc: efault@gmx.de
Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1398725155-7591-2-git-send-email-jason.low2@hp.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
| -rw-r--r-- | kernel/sched/fair.c | 16 |
1 files changed, 8 insertions, 8 deletions
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c index 7570dd969c28..0fdb96de81a5 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @@ -6653,6 +6653,7 @@ static int idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq) int this_cpu = this_rq->cpu; idle_enter_fair(this_rq); + /* * We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling idle_balance(), such that we * measure the duration of idle_balance() as idle time. @@ -6705,14 +6706,16 @@ static int idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq) raw_spin_lock(&this_rq->lock); + if (curr_cost > this_rq->max_idle_balance_cost) + this_rq->max_idle_balance_cost = curr_cost; + /* - * While browsing the domains, we released the rq lock. - * A task could have be enqueued in the meantime + * While browsing the domains, we released the rq lock, a task could + * have been enqueued in the meantime. Since we're not going idle, + * pretend we pulled a task. */ - if (this_rq->cfs.h_nr_running && !pulled_task) { + if (this_rq->cfs.h_nr_running && !pulled_task) pulled_task = 1; - goto out; - } if (pulled_task || time_after(jiffies, this_rq->next_balance)) { /* @@ -6722,9 +6725,6 @@ static int idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq) this_rq->next_balance = next_balance; } - if (curr_cost > this_rq->max_idle_balance_cost) - this_rq->max_idle_balance_cost = curr_cost; - out: /* Is there a task of a high priority class? */ if (this_rq->nr_running != this_rq->cfs.h_nr_running && |