[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51888E87.2090506@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 13:17:59 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Michael Wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] sched: consider runnable load average in move_tasks
On 05/07/2013 04:59 AM, Paul Turner wrote:
>>> Similarly, I think you also want to at least include blocked_load_avg here.
>> >
>> > I'm puzzled, this is an entity weight. Entity's don't have blocked_load_avg.
>> >
>> > The purpose here is to compute the amount of weight that's being moved by this
>> > task; to subtract from the imbalance.
> Sorry, what I meant to say here is:
> If we're going to be using a runnable average based load here the
> fraction we take (currently instantaneous) in tg_load_down should be
> consistent.
yes. I think so.
So, here is the patch, could you like take a look?
---
>From 8a98af9578154ce5d755b2c6ea7da0109cd6efa8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 23:00:53 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 6/7] sched: consider runnable load average in move_tasks
Except using runnable load average in background, move_tasks is also
the key functions in load balance. We need consider the runnable load
average in it in order to the apple to apple load comparison.
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 12 +++++++-----
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 407ef61..ca0e051 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -4121,11 +4121,12 @@ static int tg_load_down(struct task_group *tg, void *data)
long cpu = (long)data;
if (!tg->parent) {
- load = cpu_rq(cpu)->load.weight;
+ load = cpu_rq(cpu)->avg.load_avg_contrib;
} else {
load = tg->parent->cfs_rq[cpu]->h_load;
- load *= tg->se[cpu]->load.weight;
- load /= tg->parent->cfs_rq[cpu]->load.weight + 1;
+ load *= tg->se[cpu]->avg.load_avg_contrib;
+ load /= tg->parent->cfs_rq[cpu]->runnable_load_avg
+ + tg->parent->cfs_rq[cpu]->blocked_load_avg + 1;
}
tg->cfs_rq[cpu]->h_load = load;
@@ -4153,8 +4154,9 @@ static unsigned long task_h_load(struct task_struct *p)
struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq = task_cfs_rq(p);
unsigned long load;
- load = p->se.load.weight;
- load = div_u64(load * cfs_rq->h_load, cfs_rq->load.weight + 1);
+ load = p->se.avg.load_avg_contrib;
+ load = div_u64(load * cfs_rq->h_load,
+ cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg + cfs_rq->blocked_load_avg + 1);
return load;
}
--
1.7.12
--
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