Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1221252
| From | Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC] sched: make update_cpu_load_active care more than one tick |
| Date | 2015-09-09 08:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q6GJY-2RB-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <pWX9q-7Kj-39@gated-at.bofh.it> <pYCk9-5wZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 08:39:27AM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:35:24PM +0900, byungchul.park@lge.com wrote:
> > From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
> >
> > i found do_timer accounts other than one tick, so i made
> > update_cpu_load_active care that.
> >
> > is it intended because of its overhead?
>
> hello,
>
> is there anyone who can tell me any opinion about this concern?
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>
> > ---
> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 +++++--
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index ffa70dc..cd3d98f 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -4506,12 +4506,15 @@ void update_cpu_load_nohz(void)
> > */
> > void update_cpu_load_active(struct rq *this_rq)
> > {
> > + unsigned long curr_jiffies = READ_ONCE(jiffies);
> > + unsigned long pending_updates;
> > unsigned long load = this_rq->cfs.runnable_load_avg;
> > /*
> > * See the mess around update_idle_cpu_load() / update_cpu_load_nohz().
> > */
> > - this_rq->last_load_update_tick = jiffies;
> > - __update_cpu_load(this_rq, load, 1);
> > + pending_updates = curr_jiffies - this_rq->last_load_update_tick;
is it expensive to deal with this correction here?
in my QEMU machine, pending_updates appears to be more than 10, however
current code assumes it to be 1 unconditionally.
if this correction is valid, i will resend this with adding commit msg.
> > + this_rq->last_load_update_tick = curr_jiffies;
> > + __update_cpu_load(this_rq, load, pending_updates);
> > }
> >
> > /* Used instead of source_load when we know the type == 0 */
> > --
> > 1.7.9.5
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: [RFC] sched: make update_cpu_load_active care more than one tick Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> - 2015-09-09 08:10 +0200
csiph-web