[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180307122437.GM25181@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 13:24:37 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/4] sched/fair: add util_est on top of PELT
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 11:31:49AM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > It appears to me this isn't a stable situation and completely relies on
> > the !nr_running case to recalibrate. If we ensure that doesn't happen
> > for a significant while the sum can run-away, right?
>
> By away you mean go over 1024 or overflow the unsigned int storage?
the later, I think you can make it arbitrarily large. Have a busy task
on CPU0, this ensure !nr_running never happens.
Start a busy task on CPU1, wait for it to hit u=1, then migrate it to
CPU0, then wait for it to hit u=.5 then kill it, this effectively adds
.5 to the enqueued value, repeat indefinitely.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists