[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230602142739.GH620383@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 16:27:39 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
bristot@...hat.com, corbet@....net, qyousef@...alina.io,
chris.hyser@...cle.com, patrick.bellasi@...bug.net, pjt@...gle.com,
pavel@....cz, qperret@...gle.com, tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com,
joshdon@...gle.com, timj@....org, kprateek.nayak@....com,
yu.c.chen@...el.com, youssefesmat@...omium.org,
joel@...lfernandes.org, efault@....de, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/15] sched/fair: Add avg_vruntime
On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 03:51:53PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2023 at 14:47, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > +static void
> > +avg_vruntime_add(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *se)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long weight = scale_load_down(se->load.weight);
> > + s64 key = entity_key(cfs_rq, se);
> > +
> > + cfs_rq->avg_vruntime += key * weight;
> > + cfs_rq->avg_load += weight;
>
> isn't cfs_rq->avg_load similar to scale_load_down(cfs_rq->load.weight) ?
>
> > +}
Similar, yes, but not quite the same in two ways:
- it's sometimes off by one entry due to ordering of operations -- this
is probably fixable.
- it does the scale down after addition, whereas this does the scale
down before addition, esp for multiple low weight entries this makes
a significant difference.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists