[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:47:42 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] sched: make update_cpu_load_active care more than one tick
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 09:02:40AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:35:24PM +0900, byungchul.park@....com wrote:
> > From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....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?
>
> I think the idea was that the NO_HZ bits would deal with the other
> cases.
watchers of this mail might have considered i didn't know about nohz;;
because i did not explaned it in detail. it's my fault.
i mentioned the global load update in the case of periodic tick..
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists