[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141103152900.GJ12706@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2014 16:29:00 +0100
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, Morten.Rasmussen@....com,
kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux@....linux.org.uk,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, riel@...hat.com,
efault@....de, nicolas.pitre@...aro.org,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 07/10] sched: replace capacity_factor by usage
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 09:47:29AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> @@ -6414,11 +6399,12 @@ static inline void calculate_imbalance(struct lb_env *env, struct sd_lb_stats *s
> */
> if (busiest->group_type == group_overloaded &&
> local->group_type == group_overloaded) {
> - load_above_capacity =
> - (busiest->sum_nr_running - busiest->group_capacity_factor);
> -
> - load_above_capacity *= (SCHED_LOAD_SCALE * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE);
> - load_above_capacity /= busiest->group_capacity;
> + load_above_capacity = busiest->sum_nr_running *
> + SCHED_LOAD_SCALE;
> + if (load_above_capacity > busiest->group_capacity)
> + load_above_capacity -= busiest->group_capacity;
> + else
> + load_above_capacity = ~0UL;
> }
>
> /*
It seems to me we no longer have need to assume each task contributes
SCHED_LOAD_SCALE, do we?
But as it stands I tihnk this patch already does too much -- it could do
with a splitting, but let me stare at is a wee bit more.
--
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