Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753745Ab3EFID0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2013 04:03:26 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:11892 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753379Ab3EFIDZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 May 2013 04:03:25 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,619,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="308808142" Message-ID: <518763B0.30200@intel.com> Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 16:02:56 +0800 From: Alex Shi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Wang , pjt@google.com CC: mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, bp@alien8.de, namhyung@kernel.org, efault@gmx.de, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mgorman@suse.de, riel@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] sched: consider runnable load average in effective_load References: <1367804711-30308-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <1367804711-30308-8-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com> <518724D1.9040006@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <51874229.8050202@intel.com> <5187609C.5050209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <5187609C.5050209@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1897 Lines: 70 On 05/06/2013 03:49 PM, Michael Wang wrote: > On 05/06/2013 01:39 PM, Alex Shi wrote: > [snip] > > Rough test done: > >> >> 1, change back the tg_weight in calc_tg_weight() to use tg_load_contrib not direct load. > > This way stop the regression of patch 7. > >> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c >> index 6f4f14b..c770f8d 100644 >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c >> @@ -1037,8 +1037,8 @@ static inline long calc_tg_weight(struct task_group *tg, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq) >> * update_cfs_rq_load_contribution(). >> */ >> tg_weight = atomic64_read(&tg->load_avg); >> - tg_weight -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib; >> - tg_weight += cfs_rq->load.weight; >> + //tg_weight -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib; >> + //tg_weight += cfs_rq->load.weight; >> >> return tg_weight; >> } >> >> 2, another try is follow the current calc_tg_weight, so remove the follow change. > > This way show even better results than only patch 1~6. how much better to the first change? > > But the way Preeti suggested doesn't works... What's the Preeti suggestion? :) > > May be we should record some explanation about this change here, do we? I don't know why we need this, PJT, would you like to tell us why the calc_tg_weight use cfs_rq->load.weight not cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib? > > Regards, > Michael Wang > >> >>>>> @@ -3045,7 +3045,7 @@ static long effective_load(struct task_group *tg, int cpu, long wl, long wg) >>>>> /* >>>>> * w = rw_i + @wl >>>>> */ >>>>> - w = se->my_q->load.weight + wl; >>>>> + w = se->my_q->tg_load_contrib + wl; >> >> Would you like to try them? >> >> > -- 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/