Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751904AbbG0EW0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:22:26 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:53992 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750776AbbG0EWY (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:22:24 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,550,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="771634911" Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 04:31:22 +0800 From: Yuyang Du To: Dietmar Eggemann Cc: "mingo@kernel.org" , "peterz@infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "pjt@google.com" , "bsegall@google.com" , Morten Rasmussen , "vincent.guittot@linaro.org" , "umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com" , "len.brown@intel.com" , "rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com" , "arjan@linux.intel.com" , "fengguang.wu@intel.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 7/7] sched: Clean up load average references Message-ID: <20150726203122.GG28512@intel.com> References: <1436918682-4971-1-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com> <1436918682-4971-8-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com> <55B26AC9.5040508@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55B26AC9.5040508@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1961 Lines: 48 Hi Dietmar, On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 05:41:45PM +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 15/07/15 01:04, Yuyang Du wrote: > > For cfs_rq, we have load.weight, runnable_load_avg, and load_avg. We > > now start to clean up how they are used. > > > > First, as group sched_entity already largely uses load_avg, we now expand > > to use load_avg in all cases. > > You're talking about group se's or cfs_rq owned by the group se's > (se->my_q) here or both? Definitely, group SE, and if the cfs_rq owned by group SE is also concerned with group SE, then both. I don't think this is very well calculated to be optimal, but probably this is the right move I can think of now. We need to revisit all of the codes before we can at least make a final call. > Just asking because both data structures (cfs_rq and se) have a 'struct > load_weight load' as well as 'struct sched_avg avg' member. > > Second, for CPU-wide load balancing, we > > choose to use runnable_load_avg in all cases, which is the same as before > > this series. > > With your patch-set there will be still the difference of > 'cfs_rq->utilization_load_avg' and your 'cfs_rq->avg.util_avg' in the > sense that the former one does not contain the contribution of blocked se's. > > The EAS patch-set adds blocked utilization contribution: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/7/915 > > The cfs_rq utilization is also used by the load-balancer code via > get_cpu_usage() so the blocked utilization contribution to > 'cfs_rq->avg.util_avg' can change load-balancing as well. > > Since it is not as heavily used as the cfs_rq->runnable_load_avg we > might not need to reintroduce cfs_rq->utilization_load_avg but at least > mention this here. > Yes, thanks. -- 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/