[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150726203409.GH28512@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 04:34:09 +0800
From: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pjt@...gle.com, bsegall@...gle.com,
morten.rasmussen@....com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
dietmar.eggemann@....com, umgwanakikbuti@...il.com,
len.brown@...el.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, fengguang.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 6/7] sched: Provide runnable_load_avg back to cfs_rq
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:04:20PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > 1) blocked load is more "difficult" to track, hint, migrate.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> I may not get your point here? Are you saying my patch fails to handle
> the migration or are you just telling me that blocked load tracking need
> to take migration into consideration?
Both, is it so difficult to get?
> If it's the latter one, I want to say that, with blocked load or not, we
> have to handle load_avg in migrations, so *adding* some code to handle
> blocked load is not a big deal.
>
> Please consider this piece of code in update_cfs_rq_load_avg(), which
> decays and updates blocked_load_avg.
At this point of time, you tell me why exactly you want to track the blocked?
--
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