[lkml]   [2016]   [Jun]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [rfc patch] sched/fair: Use instantaneous load for fork/exec balancing
On 16/06/16 04:33, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-06-15 at 20:03 +0100, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>> Isn't there a theoretical problem with the scale_load() on CONFIG_64BIT
>> machines on tip/sched/core? load.weight has a higher resolution than
>> runnable_load_avg (and so the values in the rq->cpu_load[] array).
>> Theoretically because [forkexec|wake]_idx is 0 so [target|source]_load()
>> is nothing else than weighted_cpuload().
> I see a not so theoretical problem with my rfc in that I forgot to
> scale_load_down() if that's what you mean.

Yup. Theoretical in the sense that this_load and min_load will be
affected both the same way as long as load_idx = 0.

> (changes nothing, reality was just extra special unadulterated;)


> -Mike

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-06-16 11:41    [W:0.075 / U:1.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site