Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756548Ab3C0EsZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:48:25 -0400 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:43233 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751048Ab3C0EsY (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Mar 2013 00:48:24 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,915,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="308969029" Message-ID: <51527A08.8060207@intel.com> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:48:08 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130221 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Preeti U Murthy CC: Peter Zijlstra , Vincent Guittot , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, mingo@kernel.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, pjt@google.com, santosh.shilimkar@ti.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, chander.kashyap@linaro.org, cmetcalf@tilera.com, tony.luck@intel.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, len.brown@intel.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, amit.kucheria@linaro.org, corbet@lwn.net Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 3/6] sched: pack small tasks References: <1363955155-18382-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1363955155-18382-4-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1364301443.5053.9.camel@laptop> <5152768B.3020306@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <5152768B.3020306@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1594 Lines: 47 On 03/27/2013 12:33 PM, Preeti U Murthy wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 03/26/2013 06:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 13:25 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: >>> +static bool is_light_task(struct task_struct *p) >>> +{ >>> + /* A light task runs less than 20% in average */ >>> + return ((p->se.avg.runnable_avg_sum * 5) < >>> + (p->se.avg.runnable_avg_period)); >>> +} >> >> OK, so we have a 'problem' here, we initialize runnable_avg_* to 0, but >> we want to 'assume' a fresh task is fully 'loaded'. IIRC Alex ran into >> this as well. >> >> PJT, do you have any sane solution for this, I forgot what the result >> of the last discussion was -- was there any? > > The conclusion after last discussion between PJT and Alex was that the > load contribution of a fresh task be set to "full" during "__sched_fork()". > > task->se.avg.load_avg_contrib = task->se.load.weight during > __sched_fork() is reflected in the latest power aware scheduler patchset > by Alex. Yes, the new forked runnable load was set as full utilisation in V5 power aware scheduling. PJT, Mike and I both agree on this. PJT just discussion how to give the full load to new forked task. and we get agreement in my coming V6 power aware scheduling patchset. > > Thanks > > Regards > Preeti U Murthy >> > -- Thanks Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/