Commit 1be0eb2a authored by Peter Zijlstra's avatar Peter Zijlstra Committed by Ingo Molnar

sched/fair: Clean up scale confusion

Wanpeng noted that the scale_load_down() in calculate_imbalance() was
weird. I agree, it should be SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE, since we're going
to compare against busiest->group_capacity, which is in [capacity]
units.
Reported-by: default avatarWanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
parent 44496922
......@@ -7066,8 +7066,7 @@ static inline void calculate_imbalance(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *s
*/
if (busiest->group_type == group_overloaded &&
local->group_type == group_overloaded) {
load_above_capacity = busiest->sum_nr_running *
scale_load_down(NICE_0_LOAD);
load_above_capacity = busiest->sum_nr_running * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
if (load_above_capacity > busiest->group_capacity)
load_above_capacity -= busiest->group_capacity;
else
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment