Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752180AbbG0EZN (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:25:13 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:37311 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750897AbbG0EZM (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jul 2015 00:25:12 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,550,1432623600"; d="scan'208";a="771635559" Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 04:34:09 +0800 From: Yuyang Du To: Boqun Feng Cc: mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pjt@google.com, bsegall@google.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com, len.brown@intel.com, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, fengguang.wu@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 6/7] sched: Provide runnable_load_avg back to cfs_rq Message-ID: <20150726203409.GH28512@intel.com> References: <1436918682-4971-1-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com> <1436918682-4971-7-git-send-email-yuyang.du@intel.com> <20150721010346.GA2882@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com> <20150721004400.GA28512@intel.com> <20150721101845.GB2882@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com> <20150721102956.GA5380@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com> <20150726184325.GB28512@intel.com> <20150727032114.GA3328@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com> <20150726195634.GE28512@intel.com> <20150727040420.GC3328@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150727040420.GC3328@fixme-laptop.cn.ibm.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: 1114 Lines: 24 On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 12:04:20PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > 1) blocked load is more "difficult" to track, hint, migrate. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > I may not get your point here? Are you saying my patch fails to handle > the migration or are you just telling me that blocked load tracking need > to take migration into consideration? Both, is it so difficult to get? > If it's the latter one, I want to say that, with blocked load or not, we > have to handle load_avg in migrations, so *adding* some code to handle > blocked load is not a big deal. > > Please consider this piece of code in update_cfs_rq_load_avg(), which > decays and updates blocked_load_avg. At this point of time, you tell me why exactly you want to track the blocked? -- 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/