[PATCH] sched: remove staggering of load balancing

Timer interrupts already are staggered.  We do not need an additional layer of
time staggering for short load balancing actions that take a reasonably small
portion of the time slice.

For load balancing on large sched_domains we will add a serialization later
that avoids concurrent load balance operations and thus has the same effect as
load staggering.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: Peter Williams <pwil3058@bigpond.net.au>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Cc: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

1 files changed, 2 insertions, 8 deletions

diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index fdd26fffaa20..b5b350135002 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -2841,16 +2841,10 @@ static void active_load_balance(struct rq *busiest_rq, int busiest_cpu)
  * Balancing parameters are set up in arch_init_sched_domains.
  */
 
-/* Don't have all balancing operations going off at once: */
-static inline unsigned long cpu_offset(int cpu)
-{
-        return jiffies + cpu * HZ / NR_CPUS;
-}
-
 static void
 rebalance_tick(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq, enum idle_type idle)
 {
-        unsigned long this_load, interval, j = cpu_offset(this_cpu);
+        unsigned long this_load, interval;
         struct sched_domain *sd;
         int i, scale;
 
@@ -2885,7 +2879,7 @@ rebalance_tick(int this_cpu, struct rq *this_rq, enum idle_type idle)
                 if (unlikely(!interval))
                         interval = 1;
 
-                if (j - sd->last_balance >= interval) {
+                if (jiffies - sd->last_balance >= interval) {
                         if (load_balance(this_cpu, this_rq, sd, idle)) {
                                 /*
                                  * We've pulled tasks over so either we're no