lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 2/2] sched: make update_cpu_load_nohz() consider missed ticks in NOHZ_FULL
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:36:02AM +0900, byungchul.park@lge.com wrote:
> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
> @@ -4419,10 +4419,11 @@ static void update_idle_cpu_load(struct rq *this_rq)
> /*
> * Called from tick_nohz_idle_exit() -- try and fix up the ticks we missed.
> */
> -void update_cpu_load_nohz(void)
> +void update_cpu_load_nohz(int active)
> {
> struct rq *this_rq = this_rq();
> unsigned long curr_jiffies = READ_ONCE(jiffies);
> + unsigned long load = active ? weighted_cpuload(cpu_of(this_rq)) : 0;
> unsigned long pending_updates;
>
> if (curr_jiffies == this_rq->last_load_update_tick)
> @@ -4433,10 +4434,11 @@ void update_cpu_load_nohz(void)
> if (pending_updates) {
> this_rq->last_load_update_tick = curr_jiffies;
> /*
> - * We were idle, this means load 0, the current load might be
> - * !0 due to remote wakeups and the sort.
> + * In the regular NOHZ case, we were idle, this means load 0.
> + * In the NOHZ_FULL case, we were non-idle, we should consider
> + * its weighted load.
> */
> - __update_cpu_load(this_rq, 0, pending_updates, 0);
> + __update_cpu_load(this_rq, load, pending_updates, active);
> }
> raw_spin_unlock(&this_rq->lock);
> }

Bah, so I did all the work to get the actual number of lost ticks in
there, only to _then_ find out that's mostly pointless :-)

The problem is update_idle_cpu_load() is called while idle (from another
CPU), so it still needs the whole jiffy based thing.

So I'll take this patch for now. Thanks.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-20 14:41    [W:0.422 / U:0.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site