[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52AC5CDF.8050209@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 21:27:59 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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
On 12/14/2013 04:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>
> 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?
When enabling the sched_avg in load balance, I didn't find any positive
testing result for several blocked_avg trying, just few regression. :(
And since this patchset is almost clean up only, no blocked_load_avg
trying again...
>
> I totally hate patch 4; it seems like a random hack to make up for the
> lack of blocked_avg.
Yes, this bias criteria seems a bit arbitrary. :)
But, anyway even with blocked_load_avg, we still need to consider to
bias to local cpu. like in a scenario, 2 cpus both has nearly zero
blocked_load_avg.
BTW,
Paul, do you has new idea on blocked_load_avg using?
--
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