[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ab73c47d-daad-a4e8-1a92-98f743b18635@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 16:30:42 +0000
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Phil Auld <pauld@...hat.com>, Parth Shah <parth@...ux.ibm.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] sched/pelt: Add a new runnable average signal
On 18/02/2020 15:28, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> @@ -532,8 +535,8 @@ void print_cfs_rq(struct seq_file *m, int cpu, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>>> cfs_rq->removed.load_avg);
>>> SEQ_printf(m, " .%-30s: %ld\n", "removed.util_avg",
>>> cfs_rq->removed.util_avg);
>>> - SEQ_printf(m, " .%-30s: %ld\n", "removed.runnable_sum",
>>> - cfs_rq->removed.runnable_sum);
>>
>> Shouldn't that have been part of patch 3?
>
> No this was used to propagate load_avg
>
Right, sorry about that.
>> <fugly here>
>> +DECLARE_UPDATE_TG_CFS_SIGNAL(util);
>> +DECLARE_UPDATE_TG_CFS_SIGNAL(runnable);
>
> TBH, I prefer keeping the current version which is easier to read IMO
>
I did call it an eldritch horror :-) I agree with you here, it's a shame we
don't really have better ways to factorize this (I don't think splitting the
inputs is really an alternative).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists