[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170929113853.7voni73crg6hfvjx@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 13:38:53 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org,
josef@...icpanda.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, efault@....de, pjt@...gle.com,
clm@...com, dietmar.eggemann@....com, bsegall@...gle.com,
yuyang.du@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 03/18] sched/fair: Cure calc_cfs_shares() vs
reweight_entity()
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:04:34AM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > - load = scale_load_down(cfs_rq->load.weight);
> > + load = max(scale_load_down(cfs_rq->load.weight), cfs_rq->avg.load_avg);
>
> We use cfs_rq->tg_load_avg_contrib (the filtered version of
> cfs_rq->avg.load_avg) instead of cfs_rq->avg.load_avg further down, so I
> think we should here too for consistency.
>
> + load = max(scale_load_down(cfs_rq->load.weight),
> + cfs_rq->tg_load_avg_contrib);
>
No; we must use tg_load_avg_contrib because that is what's inclded in
tg_weight, but we want to add the most up-to-date value back in.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists