Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Jan 2016 09:23:31 +0900 | From | Byungchul Park <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] sched: Improve cpu load accounting with nohz |
| |
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:56:36PM +0000, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > Another point ... 'active=1' (function header: @active: !0 for NOHZ_FULL > is a little bit misleading) is also true for when __update_cpu_load() is > called from update_cpu_load_active(). In this case tickless_load > wouldn't have to be set at all since pending_updates is 1, > decay_load_missed() can handle that by bailing in case missed_updates = 0.
Hello Dietmar.
> > Couldn't we set tickless_load only in case: > > unsigned long tickless_load = (active && pending_updates > 1) ? > this_rq->cpu_load[0] : 0;
IMHO, this looks better even though it does not change much.
Thank you, Byungchul
| |