[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130617133934.GX3204@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:39:34 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, 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>,
Jason Low <jason.low2@...com>,
Changlong Xie <changlongx.xie@...el.com>, sgruszka@...hat.com,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch v8 6/9] sched: compute runnable load avg in cpu_load and
cpu_avg_load_per_task
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 05:17:17AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com> wrote:
> >> They are the base values in load balance, update them with rq runnable
> >> load average, then the load balance will consider runnable load avg
> >> naturally.
> >>
> >> We also try to include the blocked_load_avg as cpu load in balancing,
> >> but that cause kbuild performance drop 6% on every Intel machine, and
> >> aim7/oltp drop on some of 4 CPU sockets machines.
> >>
> >
> > This looks fine.
> >
> > Did you try including blocked_load_avg in only get_rq_runnable_load()
> > [ and not weighted_cpuload() which is called by new-idle ]?
>
> Looking at this more this feels less correct since you're taking
> averages of averages.
>
> This was previously discussed at:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/6/109
>
> And you later replied suggesting this didn't seem to hurt; what's the
> current status there?
Wasn't there a follow up series (currently as RFC or so) that proposes
to removes the entire *_idx stuff?
--
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