On 09/02/21 14:57, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 14:09, Valentin Schneider > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 05/02/21 12:48, Vincent Guittot wrote: >> > @@ -261,6 +261,12 @@ static void cpuidle_idle_call(void) >> > static void do_idle(void) >> > { >> > int cpu = smp_processor_id(); >> > + >> > + /* >> > + * Check if we need to update some blocked load >> > + */ >> > + nohz_run_idle_balance(cpu); >> > + >> >> What do we gain from doing this here vs having a stats update in >> newidle_balance()? > > As mentioned by Joel, newidle_balance is called in the schedule > context with preempt and irq off which prevent any local activity > like irq/timer. Whereas in this new place, we have the same condition > as during ILB with only preemptoff and _nohz_idle_balance() regularly > checks if it has to abort because something has been scheduled on the > cpu. >
Gotcha, that's already hinted at in the cover letter. Could you point this out in the changelog? Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with this approach.
