[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141003151451.GJ10583@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 17:14:51 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.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 Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 04:51:01PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> 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 ?
nah, just trying to put things straight in my brain, including what is
'missing'.
--
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