mirror of
https://github.com/edk2-porting/linux-next.git
synced 2024-12-26 06:04:14 +08:00
sched: Fix updating rq->max_idle_balance_cost and rq->next_balance in idle_balance()
The following commit:
e5fc66119e
("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>
This commit is contained in:
parent
6ccdc84b81
commit
0e5b5337f0
@ -6653,6 +6653,7 @@ static int idle_balance(struct rq *this_rq)
|
|||||||
int this_cpu = this_rq->cpu;
|
int this_cpu = this_rq->cpu;
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
idle_enter_fair(this_rq);
|
idle_enter_fair(this_rq);
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
/*
|
/*
|
||||||
* We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling idle_balance(), such that we
|
* We must set idle_stamp _before_ calling idle_balance(), such that we
|
||||||
* measure the duration of idle_balance() as idle time.
|
* 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);
|
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.
|
* While browsing the domains, we released the rq lock, a task could
|
||||||
* A task could have be enqueued in the meantime
|
* 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;
|
pulled_task = 1;
|
||||||
goto out;
|
|
||||||
}
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
if (pulled_task || time_after(jiffies, this_rq->next_balance)) {
|
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;
|
this_rq->next_balance = next_balance;
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
if (curr_cost > this_rq->max_idle_balance_cost)
|
|
||||||
this_rq->max_idle_balance_cost = curr_cost;
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
out:
|
out:
|
||||||
/* Is there a task of a high priority class? */
|
/* Is there a task of a high priority class? */
|
||||||
if (this_rq->nr_running != this_rq->cfs.h_nr_running &&
|
if (this_rq->nr_running != this_rq->cfs.h_nr_running &&
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user