On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 03:09:38AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > > + struct sg_lb_stats *this, *busiest; > > "this" is a little confusing to read; mainly because elsewhere we've > tied this to "this cpu" whereas the local sched group is arger. (Not > to mention the obvious OOP-land overloading of "this->".) > > Perhaps %s/this/local/ for sg_lb_stat references? Including this_stat > -> local_stat on sd_lb_stats?
fair enough, I'll edit the thing to be local. > > @@ -4952,15 +4950,16 @@ find_busiest_group(struct lb_env *env) > > * there is no imbalance between this and busiest group > > * wrt to idle cpu's, it is balanced. > > */ > > - if ((sds.this_idle_cpus <= sds.busiest_idle_cpus + 1) && > > - sds.busiest_nr_running <= sds.busiest_group_weight) > > + if ((this->idle_cpus <= busiest->idle_cpus + 1) && > > + busiest->sum_nr_running <= busiest->group_weight) > > While we're improving readability: idle_cpus < busiest->idle_cpus ? Right, took that. > This check has always been a little oddly asymmetric in that: > group_weight - sum_nr_running <= idle_cpus > > This allows the case where our group has pulled lots of work to one of > its cpus, but not yet spread that out, but still keep trying to > balance because idle_cpus is high. > > This is more food for thought since this patch is not changing functionality. Right, I saw the same and made a note to look at it later. I suppose later never happens though :/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
