[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1329411510.2293.254.camel@twins>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:58:30 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Venki Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ibm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 14/14] sched: implement usage tracking
On Wed, 2012-02-01 at 17:38 -0800, Paul Turner wrote:
> struct sched_avg {
> u64 runnable_avg_sum, runnable_avg_period;
> u64 last_runnable_update, decay_count;
> + u32 usage_avg_sum;
4 byte hole
> unsigned long load_avg_contrib;
>
> int contributes_blocked_load;
>};
A) Running/Runnable
- uses last_runnable_update to track
runnable_avg_sum, usage_avg_sum and runnable_avg_period
B) Blocked
- uses decay_count to keep track of sleeptime
C) 'Migrate'
- uses contributes_blocked_load to check if we actually did migrate?
So there's a number of things I don't get, why have
remove_task_load_avg_async() in set_task_rq()? enqueue_entity_load_avg()
can do the __synchronize_entity_decay() thing (and actually does) just
fine, right?
Similarly, why not use last_runnable_update (as last_update) to track
both A and B since a task cannot be in both states at the same time
anyway. If you always update the timestamp you can use it to either
track runnable/usage or decay for sleep.
That would get rid of decay_count and contributes_blocked_load, no?
--
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