Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Apr 2016 11:01:13 +0800 | From | Yuyang Du <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] sched/fair: Remove scale_load_down() for load_avg |
| |
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 12:25:32PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 12:12:29PM +0800, Yuyang Du wrote: > > Currently, load_avg = scale_load_down(load) * runnable%. The extra scaling > > down of load does not make much sense, because load_avg is primarily THE > > load and on top of that, we take runnable time into account. > > > > We therefore remove scale_load_down() for load_avg. But we need to > > carefully consider the overflow risk if load has higher range > > (2*SCHED_FIXEDPOINT_SHIFT). The only case an overflow may occur due > > to us is on 64bit kernel with increased load range. In that case, > > the 64bit load_sum can afford 4251057 (=2^64/47742/88761/1024) > > entities with the highest load (=88761*1024) always runnable on one > > single cfs_rq, which may be an issue, but should be fine. Even if this > > occurs at the end of day, on the condition where it occurs, the > > load average will not be useful anyway. > > I do feel we need a little more words on the actual ramification of > overflowing here. > > Yes, having 4m tasks on a single runqueue will be somewhat unlikely, but > if it happens, then what will the user experience? How long (if ever) > does it take for numbers to correct themselves etc.. > > > Signed-off-by: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@intel.com> > > [update calculate_imbalance] > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> > > This SoB Chain suggests you wrote it and Vincent send it on, yet this > email is from you and Vincent isn't anywhere. Something's not right.
Since you started to review patches, I just sent you more, :) What a coincidance.
I actually don't know the rules for this SoB, let me learn how to do this co-signed-off.
| |