linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/18] sched: compute runnable load avg in cpu_load and cpu_avg_load_per

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87623wf2eb.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:35:40 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc:	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, rob@...dley.net,
	mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	andre.przywara@....com, rjw@...k.pl, paul.gortmaker@...driver.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pjt@...gle.com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/18] sched: compute runnable load avg in cpu_load and cpu_avg_load_per_task

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:45:44 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 11:57 AM, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>> On 12/10/2012 01:52 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
>>> They are the base values in load balance, update them with rq runnable
>>> load average, then the load balance will consider runnable load avg
>>> naturally.
>>>
>
> updated with UP config fix:
>
>
> ==========
>> From d271c93b40411660dd0e54d99946367c87002cc8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
> Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:56:11 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH 07/18] sched: compute runnable load avg in cpu_load and
>  cpu_avg_load_per_task
>
> They are the base values in load balance, update them with rq runnable
> load average, then the load balance will consider runnable load avg
> naturally.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
> ---
>  kernel/sched/core.c | 8 ++++++--
>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> index 96fa5f1..d306a84 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> @@ -2487,7 +2487,7 @@ static void __update_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq, unsigned long this_load,
>  void update_idle_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq)
>  {
>  	unsigned long curr_jiffies = ACCESS_ONCE(jiffies);
> -	unsigned long load = this_rq->load.weight;
> +	unsigned long load = (unsigned long)this_rq->cfs.runnable_load_avg;

So shouldn't this line be guarded with CONFIG_SMP too?

Thanks,
Namhyung


>  	unsigned long pending_updates;
>  
>  	/*
> @@ -2537,8 +2537,12 @@ static void update_cpu_load_active(struct rq *this_rq)
>  	 * See the mess around update_idle_cpu_load() / update_cpu_load_nohz().
>  	 */
>  	this_rq->last_load_update_tick = jiffies;
> -	__update_cpu_load(this_rq, this_rq->load.weight, 1);
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +	__update_cpu_load(this_rq, this_rq->cfs.runnable_load_avg, 1);
> +#else
> +	__update_cpu_load(this_rq, this_rq->load.weight, 1);
> +#endif
>  	calc_load_account_active(this_rq);
>  }
--
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/