[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtDvX=JFf6OBBzTVbo6C76p243za+9CkL-ofSOvHQS5-mQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 16:51:01 +0200
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.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>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] sched: add utilization_avg_contrib
On 3 October 2014 16:36, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>> + * utilization_load_avg is the sum of the average running time of the
>> + * sched_entities on the rq.
>> */
>
> So I think there was some talk about a blocked_utilization thingy, which
> would track the avg running time of the tasks currently asleep, right?
>
yes. Do you mean that we should anticipate and rename
utilization_load_avg into utilization_runnable_avg to make space for a
utilization_blocked_avg that could be added in future ?
>> + unsigned long runnable_load_avg, blocked_load_avg, utilization_load_avg;
>> atomic64_t decay_counter;
>> u64 last_decay;
>> atomic_long_t removed_load;
--
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