[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51886460.3020009@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 10:18:08 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
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 3/7] sched: set initial value of runnable avg for new
forked task
On 05/06/2013 06:17 PM, Paul Turner wrote:
>>> >> Rather than exposing the representation of load_avg_contrib to
>>> >> __sched_fork it might also be better to call:
>>> >> __update_task_entity_contrib(&p->se)
>>> >> After the initialization above; this would also avoid potential bugs
>>> >> like the missing scale_load() above.
>> >
>> > Above simple change can not work.
> Could you provide additional detail here? Note that the sum change I
> was suggesting above was:
>
> __sched_fork():
> + p->se.avg.decay_count = 0;
> + p->se.avg.runnable_avg_period = 1024;
> + p->se.avg.runnable_avg_sum = 1024;
> + __update_task_entity_contrib(&p->se);
>
> [ Also: move __sched_fork() beyond p->sched_reset_on_fork in sched_fork(). ]
Thanks Paul!
It seems work with this change if new __sched_fork move after the
p->sched_reset_on_fork setting.
But why we initial avg sum to 1024? new task may goes to sleep, the
initial 1024 give a unreasonable initial value.
guess let the task accumulate itself avg sum and period is more natural.
>
>> > We had talked this solution months ago. And get agreement on this patch.
>> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/20/48 :)
> Yes, I made the same suggestion in the last round, see:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/2/19/176
>
> Your reply there seems like an ack of my suggestion, the only
> difference I'm seeing is that using __update_task_entity_contrib() as
> originally suggested is safer since it keeps the representation of
> load_avg_contrib opaque.
Yes, using __update_task_entity_contrib make load_avg_contrib opaque.
but just initial value 1024 is a bit arbitrary.
>
--
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