Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 14:03:36 +0100
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org,
        josef@toxicpanda.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, efault@gmx.de, pjt@google.com, clm@fb.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, bsegall@google.com, yuyang.du@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 02/18] sched/fair: Add comment to calc_cfs_shares()
Message-ID: <20170929130336.GB16286@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20170901132059.342024223@infradead.org>
 <20170901132748.083733695@infradead.org>
 <20170928100303.GA962@e105550-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20170929113500.kryvylelokyohssz@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170929113500.kryvylelokyohssz@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 625
Lines: 15

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 01:35:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 11:03:03AM +0100, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > IIUC, if grq->avg.load_avg > grq->load.weight, i.e. you have blocked
> > tasks, you can end up with underestimating the ge->load.weight for some
> > of the group entities lead to \Sum ge->load.weight < tg->weight.
> 
> Ah yes, you're right. However, if you look at the end of the series we
> actually end up with using:
> 
> 	max(grq->load.weight, grq->avg.load_avg)
> 
> Which I suppose makes it true again.

Yes, with the next patch in the series, underestimation is no longer
possible.