[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160118002331.GB1914@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:23:31 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...hip.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] sched: Improve cpu load accounting with nohz
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:56:36PM +0000, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> Another point ... 'active=1' (function header: @active: !0 for NOHZ_FULL
> is a little bit misleading) is also true for when __update_cpu_load() is
> called from update_cpu_load_active(). In this case tickless_load
> wouldn't have to be set at all since pending_updates is 1,
> decay_load_missed() can handle that by bailing in case missed_updates = 0.
Hello Dietmar.
>
> Couldn't we set tickless_load only in case:
>
> unsigned long tickless_load = (active && pending_updates > 1) ?
> this_rq->cpu_load[0] : 0;
IMHO, this looks better even though it does not change much.
Thank you,
Byungchul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists