[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFpoUr0SOqyGifT5Lpf=t+A+REWdWezR-AY2fM_u1-CCs8KFYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 11:45:58 +0200
From: Odin Ugedal <odin@...d.al>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: Odin Ugedal <odin@...d.al>, 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>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>,
"open list:CONTROL GROUP (CGROUP)" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/fair: Add tg_load_contrib cfs_rq decay checking
Hi,
> I finally got it this morning with your script and I confirm that the
> problem of load_sum == 0 but load_avg != 0 comes from
> update_tg_cfs_load(). Then, it seems that we don't call
> update_tg_load_avg for this cfs_rq in __update_blocked_fair() because
> of a recent update while propagating child's load changes. At the end
> we remove the cfs_rq from the list without updating its contribution.
>
> I'm going to prepare a patch to fix this
Yeah, that is another way to look at it. Have not verified, but
wouldn't update_tg_load_avg() in this case
just remove the diff (load_avg - tg_load_avg_contrib)? Wouldn't we
still see some tg_load_avg_contrib
after the cfs_rq is removed from the list then? Eg. in my example
above, the cfs_rq will be removed from
the list while tg_load_avg_contrib=2, or am I missing something? That
was my thought when I looked
at it last week at least..
Thanks
Odin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists