-
Vincent Guittot authored
In wake_affine() I have tried to understand the meaning of the condition: (this_load <= load && this_load + target_load(prev_cpu, idx) <= tl_per_task) but I failed to find a use case that can take advantage of it and I haven't found clear description in the previous commit's log. Futhermore, the comment of the condition refers to the task_hot function that was used before being replaced by the current condition: /* * This domain has SD_WAKE_AFFINE and * p is cache cold in this domain, and * there is no bad imbalance. */ If we look more deeply the below condition: this_load + target_load(prev_cpu, idx) <= tl_per_task When sync is clear, we have: tl_per_task = runnable_load_avg / nr_running this_load = max(runnable_load_avg, cpuload[idx]) target_load = max(runnable_load_avg', cpuload'[idx]) It implies that runnable_load_avg == 0 and nr_running <= 1 in order to match the condition. This implies that runnable_load_avg == 0 too because of the condition: this_load <= load. but if this _load is null, 'balanced' is already set and the test is redundant. If sync is set, it's not as straight forward as above (especially if cgroup are involved) but the policy should be similar as we have removed a task that's going to sleep in order to get a more accurate load and this_load values. The current conclusion is that these additional condition don't give any benefit so we can remove them. Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: riel@redhat.com Cc: Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com Cc: efault@gmx.de Cc: nicolas.pitre@linaro.org Cc: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1409051215-16788-3-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.orgSigned-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
05bfb65f