lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:54:11 +0100
From:	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 09/12] Revert "sched: Put rq's sched_avg under CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED"

[...]

>> In that same discussion ISTR a suggestion about adding avg_running time,
>> as opposed to the current avg_runnable. The sum of avg_running should be
>> much more accurate, and still react correctly to migrations.
> 
> I haven't look in details but I agree that avg_running would be much
> more accurate than avg_runnable and should probably fit the
> requirement. Does it means that we could re-add the avg_running (or
> something similar) that has disappeared during the review of load avg
> tracking patchset ?

Are you referring to '[RFC PATCH 14/14] sched: implement usage tracking'
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/1/769 from Paul Turner?

__update_entity_runnable_avg() has an additional parameter 'running' so
that it can be called for

a) sched_entities in update_entity_load_avg():

  __update_entity_runnable_avg(..., se->on_rq, cfs_rq->curr == se))


b) rq's in update_rq_runnable_avg():

  __update_entity_runnable_avg(..., runnable, runnable);

I can see how it gives us two different signals for a sched_entity but
for a rq?

Do I miss something here?

-- Dietmar

[...]

--
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