Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 18 Aug 2015 08:39:27 +0900 | From | Byungchul Park <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] sched: make update_cpu_load_active care more than one tick |
| |
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 06:35:24PM +0900, byungchul.park@lge.com wrote: > From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> > > i found do_timer accounts other than one tick, so i made > update_cpu_load_active care that. > > is it intended because of its overhead?
hello,
is there anyone who can tell me any opinion about this concern?
> > Signed-off-by: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com> > --- > kernel/sched/fair.c | 7 +++++-- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c > index ffa70dc..cd3d98f 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c > @@ -4506,12 +4506,15 @@ void update_cpu_load_nohz(void) > */ > void update_cpu_load_active(struct rq *this_rq) > { > + unsigned long curr_jiffies = READ_ONCE(jiffies); > + unsigned long pending_updates; > unsigned long load = this_rq->cfs.runnable_load_avg; > /* > * See the mess around update_idle_cpu_load() / update_cpu_load_nohz(). > */ > - this_rq->last_load_update_tick = jiffies; > - __update_cpu_load(this_rq, load, 1); > + pending_updates = curr_jiffies - this_rq->last_load_update_tick; > + this_rq->last_load_update_tick = curr_jiffies; > + __update_cpu_load(this_rq, load, pending_updates); > } > > /* Used instead of source_load when we know the type == 0 */ > -- > 1.7.9.5 > > -- > 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/
| |