[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200304095209.GK2596@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2020 10:52:09 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: 王贇 <yun.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
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>,
"open list:SCHEDULER" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: fix the nonsense shares when load of cfs_rq
is too, small
On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 09:47:34AM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> you will add +1 of nice prio for each device
>
> should we use instead
> # define scale_load_down(w) ((w >> SCHED_FIXEDPOINT_SHIFT) ? (w >>
> SCHED_FIXEDPOINT_SHIFT) : MIN_SHARES)
That's '((w >> SHIFT) ?: MIN_SHARES)', but even that is not quite right.
I think we want something like:
#define scale_load_down(w) \
({ unsigned long ___w = (w); \
if (___w) \
____w = max(MIN_SHARES, ___w >> SHIFT); \
___w; })
That is, we very much want to retain 0 I'm thinking.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists