linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] sched: consider runnable load average in effective

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]

Date:	Mon, 06 May 2013 16:02:56 +0800
From:	Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To:	Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, pjt@...gle.com
CC:	mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, bp@...en8.de, namhyung@...nel.org,
	efault@....de, morten.rasmussen@....com,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	viresh.kumar@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	mgorman@...e.de, riel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] sched: consider runnable load average in effective_load

On 05/06/2013 03:49 PM, Michael Wang wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 01:39 PM, Alex Shi wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> Rough test done:
> 
>>
>> 1, change back the tg_weight in calc_tg_weight() to use tg_load_contrib not direct load.
> 
> This way stop the regression of patch 7.
> 
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 6f4f14b..c770f8d 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -1037,8 +1037,8 @@ static inline long calc_tg_weight(struct task_group *tg, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>>  	 * update_cfs_rq_load_contribution().
>>  	 */
>>  	tg_weight = atomic64_read(&tg->load_avg);
>> -	tg_weight -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib;
>> -	tg_weight += cfs_rq->load.weight;
>> +	//tg_weight -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib;
>> +	//tg_weight += cfs_rq->load.weight;
>>
>>  	return tg_weight;
>>  }
>>
>> 2, another try is follow the current calc_tg_weight, so remove the follow change.
> 
> This way show even better results than only patch 1~6.

how much better to the first change?
> 
> But the way Preeti suggested doesn't works...

What's the Preeti suggestion? :)
> 
> May be we should record some explanation about this change here, do we?

I don't know why we need this, PJT, would you like to tell us why the
calc_tg_weight use cfs_rq->load.weight not cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib?


> 
> Regards,
> Michael Wang
> 
>>
>>>>> @@ -3045,7 +3045,7 @@ static long effective_load(struct task_group *tg, int cpu, long wl, long wg)
>>>>>  		/*
>>>>>  		 * w = rw_i + @wl
>>>>>  		 */
>>>>> -		w = se->my_q->load.weight + wl;
>>>>> +		w = se->my_q->tg_load_contrib + wl;
>>
>> Would you like to try them?
>>
>>
> 


-- 
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/