[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170929152607.GC16286@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:26:10 +0100
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 04/18] sched/fair: Remove se->load.weight from
se->avg.load_sum
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 03:21:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +/*
> + * sched_entity:
> + *
> + * load_sum := runnable_sum
> + * load_avg = se_weight(se) * runnable_avg
> + *
> + * cfq_rs:
I think this should be "cfs_rq" instead.
> + *
> + * load_sum = \Sum se_weight(se) * se->avg.load_sum
> + * load_avg = \Sum se->avg.load_avg
> + */
I find it a bit confusing that load_sum and load_avg have different
definitions, but I guess I will discover why dropping weight from
se->avg.load_sum helps a bit later. We can't do the same for cfs_rq as
it is a \Sum of sums where we add/remove contributions when tasks
migrate.
Have we defined the relation between runnable_sum and runnable_avg in a
comment somewhere already? Otherwise it might be helpful to add. It is
in the code of course :-)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists