Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1456939

Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: refine maximum periods for decay_load

From Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: refine maximum periods for decay_load
Date 2016-08-05 10:20 +0200
Message-ID <s2Iwh-4ZL-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <s2GXv-3Uf-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <s2IcV-4Ek-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


Hi Vincent,

Thanks for review.

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 09:56:46AM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Leo,
> 
> On 5 August 2016 at 08:34, Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > In current code, decay_load() will consider to set load value to zero
> > after passing 32*64 ms. So this means max_load * (0.5^64) ~= 0.
> >
> > Kernel can support maximum number of processes and threads to 2^29 and
> > set task with highest priority with nice=-20 (weight = 88761). So in
> > worst case, one CPU may have maximum load value is:
> >
> >     max_load = 2^29 * 88761 < 2^46
> >
> > In theory after pass 46 periods we can ensure load value will be decayed
> > to zero. So this patch is to change maximum periods from 64 to 48.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/sched/fair.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > index e342159..55cb134 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> > @@ -2622,7 +2622,7 @@ static __always_inline u64 decay_load(u64 val, u64 n)
> >
> >         if (!n)
> >                 return val;
> > -       else if (unlikely(n > LOAD_AVG_PERIOD * 63))
> > +       else if (unlikely(n > LOAD_AVG_PERIOD * 47))
> 
> In the equation above, you use 46 then you mentioned : "change maximum
> periods from 64 to 48." and finally you use 47.

Sorry introduce confusion. I want to align to 16 so choose maximum
periods to 48, and due to condition is (n > LOAD_AVG_PERIOD * 47) so
it equeals to (n >= LOAD_AVG_PERIOD * 48).

Precisely I think the code should be:
    else if (unlikely(n >= LOAD_AVG_PERIOD * 46))

Do you think this is okay?

> >                 return 0;
> >
> >         /* after bounds checking we can collapse to 32-bit */
> > --
> > 1.9.1
> >

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH] sched/fair: refine maximum periods for decay_load Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> - 2016-08-05 08:40 +0200
  Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: refine maximum periods for decay_load Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-08-05 10:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: refine maximum periods for decay_load Leo Yan <leo.yan@linaro.org> - 2016-08-05 10:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: refine maximum periods for decay_load Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> - 2016-08-05 10:40 +0200

csiph-web