Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 06 May 2013 16:02:56 +0800 | From | Alex Shi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] sched: consider runnable load average in effective_load |
| |
On 05/06/2013 03:49 PM, Michael Wang wrote: > On 05/06/2013 01:39 PM, Alex Shi wrote: > [snip] > > Rough test done: > >> >> 1, change back the tg_weight in calc_tg_weight() to use tg_load_contrib not direct load. > > This way stop the regression of patch 7. > >> >> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c >> index 6f4f14b..c770f8d 100644 >> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c >> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c >> @@ -1037,8 +1037,8 @@ static inline long calc_tg_weight(struct task_group *tg, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq) >> * update_cfs_rq_load_contribution(). >> */ >> tg_weight = atomic64_read(&tg->load_avg); >> - tg_weight -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib; >> - tg_weight += cfs_rq->load.weight; >> + //tg_weight -= cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib; >> + //tg_weight += cfs_rq->load.weight; >> >> return tg_weight; >> } >> >> 2, another try is follow the current calc_tg_weight, so remove the follow change. > > This way show even better results than only patch 1~6.
how much better to the first change? > > But the way Preeti suggested doesn't works...
What's the Preeti suggestion? :) > > May be we should record some explanation about this change here, do we?
I don't know why we need this, PJT, would you like to tell us why the calc_tg_weight use cfs_rq->load.weight not cfs_rq->tg_load_contrib?
> > Regards, > Michael Wang > >> >>>>> @@ -3045,7 +3045,7 @@ static long effective_load(struct task_group *tg, int cpu, long wl, long wg) >>>>> /* >>>>> * w = rw_i + @wl >>>>> */ >>>>> - w = se->my_q->load.weight + wl; >>>>> + w = se->my_q->tg_load_contrib + wl; >> >> Would you like to try them? >> >> >
-- Thanks Alex
| |