[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180802122629.GU2476@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2018 14:26:29 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
mingo@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
morten.rasmussen@....com, chris.redpath@....com,
patrick.bellasi@....com, valentin.schneider@....com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, thara.gopinath@...aro.org,
viresh.kumar@...aro.org, tkjos@...gle.com, joel@...lfernandes.org,
smuckle@...gle.com, adharmap@...cinc.com, skannan@...cinc.com,
pkondeti@...eaurora.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
edubezval@...il.com, srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com,
currojerez@...eup.net, javi.merino@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/14] sched: Add over-utilization/tipping point
indicator
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:25:16PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> @@ -5100,8 +5118,17 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> update_cfs_group(se);
> }
>
> - if (!se)
> + if (!se) {
> add_nr_running(rq, 1);
> + /*
> + * The utilization of a new task is 'wrong' so wait for it
> + * to build some utilization history before trying to detect
> + * the overutilized flag.
> + */
> + if (flags & ENQUEUE_WAKEUP)
> + update_overutilized_status(rq);
> +
> + }
>
> hrtick_update(rq);
> }
That is a somewhat dodgy hack. There is no guarantee what so ever that
when the task wakes next its history is any better. The comment doesn't
reflect this I feel.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists