[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141003153826.GM2849@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 17:38:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, riel@...hat.com,
Morten.Rasmussen@....com, efault@....de, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, pjt@...gle.com, bsegall@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] sched: replace capacity_factor by usage
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 06:08:04PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> This implementation of utilization_avg_contrib doesn't solve the scaling
> in-variance problem, so i have to scale the utilization with original
> capacity of the CPU in order to get the CPU usage and compare it with the
> capacity. Once the scaling invariance will have been added in
> utilization_avg_contrib, we will remove the scale of utilization_avg_contrib
> by cpu_capacity_orig in get_cpu_usage. But the scaling invariance will come
> in another patchset.
I would have expected this in the previous patch that introduced that
lot. Including a few words on how/why the cpu_capacity is a 'good'
approximation etc..
> Finally, the sched_group->sched_group_capacity->capacity_orig has been removed
> because it's more used during load balance.
That sentence is a contradiction, I expect there's a negative gone
missing someplace.
--
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