Messages in this thread | | | From | Paul Turner <> | Date | Mon, 6 May 2013 13:59:22 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 6/7] sched: consider runnable load average in move_tasks |
| |
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote: > On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 01:53:44AM -0700, Paul Turner wrote: >> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> wrote: >> > Except using runnable load average in background, move_tasks is also >> > the key functions in load balance. We need consider the runnable load >> > average in it in order to the apple to apple load comparison. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> >> > --- >> > kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 +++++++- >> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c >> > index 0bf88e8..790e23d 100644 >> > --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c >> > +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c >> > @@ -3966,6 +3966,12 @@ static unsigned long task_h_load(struct task_struct *p); >> > >> > static const unsigned int sched_nr_migrate_break = 32; >> > >> > +static unsigned long task_h_load_avg(struct task_struct *p) >> > +{ >> > + return div_u64(task_h_load(p) * (u64)p->se.avg.runnable_avg_sum, >> > + p->se.avg.runnable_avg_period + 1); >> >> Similarly, I think you also want to at least include blocked_load_avg here. > > I'm puzzled, this is an entity weight. Entity's don't have blocked_load_avg. > > The purpose here is to compute the amount of weight that's being moved by this > task; to subtract from the imbalance.
Sorry, what I meant to say here is: If we're going to be using a runnable average based load here the fraction we take (currently instantaneous) in tg_load_down should be consistent.
| |