lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [patch 11/16] sched: replace update_shares weight distribution with per-entity computation
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Benjamin Segall <bsegall@google.com> wrote:
> blocked_load_avg ~= \sum_child child.runnable_avg_sum/child.runnable_avg_period * child.weight
>
> The thought was: So if all the children have hit zero runnable_avg_sum
> (or in the case of a child task, will when they wake up), then
> blocked_avg sum should also hit zero at the same and we're in theory
> fine.
>
> However, child load can be significantly larger than even the maximum
> value of runnable_avg_sum (and you can get a full contribution off a new
> task with only one tick of runnable_avg_sum anyway...), so
> runnable_avg_sum can hit zero first due to rounding. We should case on
> runnable_avg_sum || blocked_load_avg.

Clipping blocked_load_avg when runnable_avg_sum goes to zero is
sufficient. At this point we cannot contribute to our parent anyway.

>
>
> As a side note, currently decay_load uses SRR, which means none of these
> will hit zero anyway if updates occur more often than once per 32ms. I'm
> not sure how we missed /that/, but fixes incoming.

Egads, fixed. We definitely used to have that, I think it got lost in
the "clean everything up, break it into a series, and make it pretty"
step. Perhaps that explains why some of the numbers in the previous
table were a little different.


>
> Thanks,
> Ben
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-10-03 00:01    [W:0.050 / U:0.976 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site