[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140730004007.GC28673@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 08:40:07 +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 Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:30:08AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > Isn't the entire effort starting from PJT and Ben up to now to soften the extremely
> > dynamic changes (runnable or not, weight change, etc)? Assume task does not change
> > weight much, but group entity does as Peter mentioned.
>
> No, softening isn't the point at all. But an integrator is the only
> means of predicting the future given the erratic past.
>
> The whole point we got into this game is to better compute per cpu group
> weights, not to soften stuff, that's just a necessarily evil to more
> accurately predict erratic/unknown behaviour.
>
>
Yes, I totally agree. I think what I meant by "soften" is the *effect* of the integrator
that takes/averages the infinite history to predict the tufure.
--
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