[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131213200303.GI2480@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:03:03 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, morten.rasmussen@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
fweisbec@...il.com, linux@....linux.org.uk, tony.luck@...el.com,
fenghua.yu@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com, pjt@...gle.com,
fengguang.wu@...el.com, james.hogan@...tec.com, jason.low2@...com,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, hanjun.guo@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] sched: remove cpu_load decay
I had a quick peek at the actual patches.
afaict we're now using weighted_cpuload() aka runnable_load_avg as the
->cpu_load. Whatever happened to also using the blocked_avg?
I totally hate patch 4; it seems like a random hack to make up for the
lack of blocked_avg.
--
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