[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <63ee8775-f159-e172-15f4-2ddf941870ee@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 12:24:52 +0200
From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] sched/fair: Replace source_load() & target_load() w/
weighted_cpuload()
On 5/28/19 6:42 AM, Hillf Danton wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 May 2019 07:21:11 +0100 Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
[...]
>> @@ -5500,7 +5464,7 @@ wake_affine_weight(struct sched_domain *sd, struct task_struct *p,
>> this_eff_load *= 100;
>> this_eff_load *= capacity_of(prev_cpu);
>>
>> - prev_eff_load = source_load(prev_cpu, sd->wake_idx);
>> + prev_eff_load = weighted_cpuload(cpu_rq(this_cpu));
> cpu_rq(prev_cpu)
>
> Seems we have no need to see this cpu's load more than once.
Thanks for catching this! Will fix it in v2.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists