[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150910100727.GU3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:07:27 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>
Cc: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@....com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"daniel.lezcano@...aro.org" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
"rjw@...ysocki.net" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
"sgurrappadi@...dia.com" <sgurrappadi@...dia.com>,
"pang.xunlei@....com.cn" <pang.xunlei@....com.cn>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] sched/fair: Get rid of scaling utilization by
capacity_orig
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 04:15:20AM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 01:50:38PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> > > It's both a unit and a SCALE/SHIFT problem, SCHED_LOAD_SHIFT and
> > > SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT are defined separately so we must be sure to
> > > scale the value in the right range. In the case of cpu_usage which
> > > returns sa->util_avg , it's the capacity range not the load range.
> >
> > Still don't understand why it's a unit problem. IMHO LOAD/UTIL and
> > CAPACITY have no unit.
>
> To be more accurate, probably, LOAD can be thought of as having unit,
> but UTIL has no unit.
But I'm thinking that is wrong; it should have one, esp. if we go scale
the thing. Giving it the same fixed point unit as load simplifies the
code.
--
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