Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752663AbdDNIrv (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 14 Apr 2017 04:47:51 -0400
Received: from mail-oi0-f48.google.com ([209.85.218.48]:36213 "EHLO
        mail-oi0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751235AbdDNIrt (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 14 Apr 2017 04:47:49 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170413180612.hzji6hz2q4iwxcoz@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20170410173802.orygigjbcpefqtdv@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170411075221.GA30421@linaro.org> <20170411085305.aik6gdy6n3wa22ok@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170411094021.GA17811@linaro.org> <20170411104136.33hkvzlmoa7zc72l@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170411104949.eat4o37rlqiiobeu@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170411130920.GB22895@linaro.org> <20170412112858.75hg75sd3clfxvvk@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170413133205.jbf25sptwyldfvih@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKfTPtDcrJ+hnbifAzv-u-2Bhji2e54FrzwpL_=DBfk+imnaDQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170413180612.hzji6hz2q4iwxcoz@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 10:47:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtBeLMzpQANqY8=1CX7Ua8fBhCs0yM=4HWsxgvnjxFomvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sched/fair: update scale invariance of PELT
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 898
Lines: 23

On 13 April 2017 at 20:06, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 04:59:15PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 13 April 2017 at 15:32, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 01:28:58PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >
>> >> I still wonder about the whole !running vs !weight thing.,
>> >
>> > Ah, since we use this for both util _and_ load, we need !running &&
>> > !weight, and it so happens that !weight implies !running. Is that it?
>>
>> exactly
>> sorry, I should have started with that
>
> Damn, that just bring me around to wondering why running is the right
> condition to create lost-time.
>
> Because for runnable we want everything that has weight.

I have considered that the waiting time doesn't have to be scaled
unlike the running time of the runnable because waiting is the same
whatever the current capacity

>