[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1361453587.26780.18.camel@laptop>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:33:07 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc: 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, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
morten.rasmussen@....com
Subject: Re: [patch v5 09/15] sched: add power aware scheduling in
fork/exec/wake
On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 22:23 +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
> > But but but,... nr_running is completely unrelated to utilization.
> >
>
> Actually, I also hesitated on the name, how about using nr_running to
> replace group_util directly?
The name is a secondary issue, first you need to explain why you think
nr_running is a useful metric at all.
You can have a high nr_running and a low utilization (a burst of
wakeups, each waking a process that'll instantly go to sleep again), or
low nr_running and high utilization (a single process cpu bound
process).
There is absolutely no relation between utilization and nr_running,
building something on that assumption is just wrong and broken.
--
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