[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1242331227.6642.1637.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 22:00:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] sched, timers: move calc_load() to scheduler
On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 11:21 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> plain text document attachment (move-calc-load-to-scheduler-v1.patch)
> +/*
> + * calc_load - update the avenrun load estimates 10 ticks after the
> + * CPUs have updated calc_load_tasks.
> + */
> +void calc_global_load(void)
> +{
> + unsigned long upd = calc_load_update + 10;
> + long active;
> +
> + if (time_before(jiffies, upd))
> + return;
>
> + active = atomic_long_read(&calc_load_tasks);
> + active = active > 0 ? active * FIXED_1 : 0;
>
> + avenrun[0] = calc_load(avenrun[0], EXP_1, active);
> + avenrun[1] = calc_load(avenrun[1], EXP_5, active);
> + avenrun[2] = calc_load(avenrun[2], EXP_15, active);
> +
> + calc_load_update += LOAD_FREQ;
> +}
> @@ -1211,7 +1160,8 @@ static inline void update_times(unsigned
> void do_timer(unsigned long ticks)
> {
> jiffies_64 += ticks;
> - update_times(ticks);
> + update_wall_time();
> + calc_global_load();
> }
I can see multiple cpus fall into calc_global_load() concurrently, which
would 'age' the load faster than expected.
Should we plug that hole?
--
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