[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5124DF88.5050908@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 22:36:56 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de, pjt@...gle.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, efault@....de, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [patch v5 06/15] sched: log the cpu utilization at rq
On 02/20/2013 09:34 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 17:39 +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * This is the main, per-CPU runqueue data structure.
>>>> *
>>>> @@ -481,6 +484,7 @@ struct rq {
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> struct sched_avg avg;
>>>> + unsigned int util;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> static inline int cpu_of(struct rq *rq)
>>>
>>> You don't actually compute the rq utilization, you only compute the
>>> utilization as per the fair class, so if there's significant RT activity
>>> it'll think the cpu is under-utilized, whihc I think will result in the
>>> wrong thing.
>>
>> Correct me if I am wrong,but isn't the current load balancer also
>> disregarding the real time tasks to calculate the domain/group/cpu level
>> load too?
>
> Nope, the rt utilization affects the cpu_power, thereby correcting the
> weight stuff.
The balance policy use group capacity, that implicated using cpu power,
but seems capacity is a very rough data.
>
>
--
Thanks
Alex
--
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