Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753922Ab2FSGUZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2012 02:20:25 -0400 Received: from defout.telus.net ([204.209.205.34]:35132 "EHLO defout.telus.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753812Ab2FSGUW (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jun 2012 02:20:22 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=6lYgUmJHSZMEKcXdk4aMnlaQSd9U6pgXu/uGWx+cTRU= c=1 sm=2 a=d5aLr75umSEA:10 a=LGgl8L9ij00A:10 a=ZPSk82zQDygA:10 a=-IAd7gDG08OdqTwGXAIA:9 a=UAVRJdkkkM0A:10 X-Telus-Outbound-IP: 173.180.45.4 From: "Doug Smythies" To: "'Peter Zijlstra'" , "'Charles Wang'" Cc: , "'Ingo Molnar'" , "'Tao Ma'" , =?ISO-2022-JP?B?JxskQjReQmMbKEIn?= , "'Thomas Gleixner'" , "Doug Smythies" References: <1339239295-18591-1-git-send-email-muming.wq@taobao.com> <1339429374.30462.54.camel@twins> <4FD70D12.5030404@gmail.com> <1339494970.31548.66.camel@twins> <4FDB4642.5070509@gmail.com> <1340035417.15222.95.camel@twins> In-Reply-To: <1340035417.15222.95.camel@twins> Subject: RE: [PATCH] sched: Folding nohz load accounting more accurate Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 23:19:56 -0700 Message-ID: <002c01cd4de3$910d3810$b327a830$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Ac1Na/8UrsUBM84OTzKtCUEjU8snLQAcqCSQ Content-Language: en-ca Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1661 Lines: 51 > On 2012.06.18 09:04 -0700, Peter Zijlstra wrote: [... lots deleted ...] > Can someone please think through the below thing? its been compile > tested only... [... code patch deleted ...] Your code patch makes sense to me, but I admit that I still have difficulties to follow this area of code. Note: I didn't have time yet to review or try Charles' solution. I back edited this new solution into my working kernel and retested the same two operating points as over the weekend. Summary: 2 Processes @ 90 hertz per process and 0.15 load per process, or 0.30 total. Reported Load Average (long average): Kernel 3.5 RC2: ~1.5 Kernel Peter 2012.06.15: ~1.8 Kernel Peter 2012.06.18: ~0.3 (0.28) 8 processes @ 150 hertz per process and 0.7925 load per process, or 6.34 total. Reported Load Average (long average): Kernel 3.5 RC2: ~3.9 Kernel Peter 2012.06.15: ~7.9 Kernel Peter 2012.06.18: ~6.3 I will start one of my longer term experiments tonight. It will take many days to do all the tests. If things change, the tests can be re-started. Note: On my computers I have no way to test the catch- up code path, as my computers never take that path. A note on the test code for loading (from other branch of this thread): Peter, I'll try your code sometime. It was on purpose that I made mine a mindless code loop, without any system calls to keep time. But yes, mine is proving a little annoying to use. -- 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/