[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180308091533.GA25235@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 10:15:33 +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 4/4] sched/fair: update util_est only on util_avg
updates
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 11:38:52AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 05:01:53PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > @@ -5218,7 +5242,7 @@ static inline void util_est_enqueue(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> >
> > /* Update root cfs_rq's estimated utilization */
> > enqueued = READ_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued);
> > - enqueued += _task_util_est(p);
> > + enqueued += (_task_util_est(p) | 0x1);
>
> UTIL_EST_NEED_UPDATE_FLAG, although I do agree that 0x1 is much easier
> to type ;-)
>
> But you set it for the cfs_rq value ?! That doesn't seem right.
>
> > WRITE_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued, enqueued);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -5310,7 +5334,7 @@ static inline void util_est_dequeue(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq,
> > if (cfs_rq->nr_running) {
> > ue.enqueued = READ_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued);
> > ue.enqueued -= min_t(unsigned int, ue.enqueued,
> > - _task_util_est(p));
> > + (_task_util_est(p) | UTIL_EST_NEED_UPDATE_FLAG));
> > }
> > WRITE_ONCE(cfs_rq->avg.util_est.enqueued, ue.enqueued);
> >
OK, so you unconditionally set that bit here to make the add/sub match.
Clearly I wasn't having a good day yesterday.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists