[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtA0WPF67p8CfSNOv5CiqYP_PA-gE23iyArmeVOh2azKKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:45:00 +0100
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>, 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 14 March 2012 16:01, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 17:57 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > struct sched_avg {
> > > u64 runnable_avg_sum, runnable_avg_period;
> > > u64 last_runnable_update, decay_count;
> > > + u32 usage_avg_sum;
> >
> > Why usage_avg_sum is 32bits whereas runnable_avg_sum and
> > runnable_avg_period are 64bits long ? You are doing the same
> > computation on these 3 variables. Only the computation need to be done
> > in 64bits but the result could be saved in 32bits ?
>
> Since you can never use more than 100% of cpu time, usage_avg_sum is
> bound to 100% of the period, which (assuming your period < ~4s) should
> thus still fit in the ~4s u32 provides.
>
> Runnable otoh is not bound by that and thus we cannot guarantee the
> value stays within the ~4s value range.
Shouldn't usage_avg_sum and runnable_avg_sum be equal for rq because
running and runnable parameters are equals and we have the same
computation ?
Furthermore, the geometric series should ensure us that final value
shouldn't be larger than 1024/(1-y) which is around 47000
--
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