[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1343138818.5132.98.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:06:58 +0100
From: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ 028/108] sched/nohz: Rewrite and fix load-avg computation --
again
On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 02:07 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
>
> ------------------
>
> From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
>
> commit 5167e8d5417bf5c322a703d2927daec727ea40dd upstream.
>
> Thanks to Charles Wang for spotting the defects in the current code:
>
> - If we go idle during the sample window -- after sampling, we get a
> negative bias because we can negate our own sample.
>
> - If we wake up during the sample window we get a positive bias
> because we push the sample to a known active period.
>
> So rewrite the entire nohz load-avg muck once again, now adding
> copious documentation to the code.
[...]
Based on <http://bugs.debian.org/674153>, I think we also need:
556061b sched/nohz: Fix rq->cpu_load[] calculations
5aaa0b7 sched/nohz: Fix rq->cpu_load calculations some more
Does this ('sched/nohz: Rewrite and fix load-avg computation -- again')
depend in any way on those, or are they separate fixes?
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
If more than one person is responsible for a bug, no one is at fault.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists