[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140729015344.GF5203@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 09:53:44 +0800
From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, alan.cox@...el.com,
"Gross, Mark" <mark.gross@...el.com>,
"fengguang.wu@...el.com" <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v4] sched: Rewrite per entity runnable load average
tracking
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:39:11AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > For task, assuming its load.weight does not change much, yes, we can. But in theory, task's
> >
> > I would even say that the load_avg of a task should not be impacted by
> > an old priority value. Once, the priority of a task is changed, we
> > should only take into account this new priority to weight the load_avg
> > of the task
>
> So for tasks I would immediately agree, and I think for groups too,
> seeing how the group weight is based off of this avg, if you then
> include the old weight we'll get a feedback loop. This might not be
> desired as it would counteract the SMP movement of tasks.
Including the old weight can we get the *right* feedback. Because say until
weight is changed, we are balanced, changed weight leads to imbalance. Without
old weight, the imbalance is multiplied by the history, like we have never been
balanced.
--
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