lk/linux-kernel-test
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

sched, cgroup: Optimize load_balance_fair()

Browse Source 
Use for_each_leaf_cfs_rq() instead of list_for_each_entry_rcu(), this
achieves that load_balance_fair() only iterates those task_groups that
actually have tasks on busiest, and that we iterate bottom-up, trying to
move light groups before the heavier ones.

No idea if it will actually work out to be beneficial in practice, does
anybody have a cgroup workload that might show a difference one way or
the other?

[ Also move update_h_load to sched_fair.c, loosing #ifdef-ery ]

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Reviewed-by: Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1310557009.2586.28.camel@twins
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This commit is contained in:
Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-13 13:09:25 +02:00
committed by Ingo Molnar
parent 9598c82dca
commit 9763b67fb9
2 changed files with 35 additions and 37 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

32
kernel/sched.c
View File

@ -1568,38 +1568,6 @@ static unsigned long cpu_avg_load_per_task(int cpu)
return rq->avg_load_per_task;
}
#ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
/*
* Compute the cpu's hierarchical load factor for each task group.
* This needs to be done in a top-down fashion because the load of a child
* group is a fraction of its parents load.
*/
static int tg_load_down(struct task_group *tg, void *data)
{
unsigned long load;
long cpu = (long)data;
if (!tg->parent) {
load = cpu_rq(cpu)->load.weight;
} else {
load = tg->parent->cfs_rq[cpu]->h_load;
load *= tg->se[cpu]->load.weight;
load /= tg->parent->cfs_rq[cpu]->load.weight + 1;
}
tg->cfs_rq[cpu]->h_load = load;
return 0;
}
static void update_h_load(long cpu)
{
walk_tg_tree(tg_load_down, tg_nop, (void *)cpu);
}
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT
static void double_rq_lock(struct rq *rq1, struct rq *rq2);