lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Feb]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] sched/loadavg: Avoid loadavg spikes caused by delayed NO_HZ accounting
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 04:16:19PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb, at 04:12:11PM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 01:29:24PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > The calculation for the next sample window when exiting NOH_HZ idle
> > > does not handle the fact that we may not have reached the next sample
> > > window yet
> >
> > That sentence is hard to parse, it took me some time to figure out that
> > those two "next sample window" may not refer to the same thing.
>
> Yeah, it's not the most lucid thing I've ever written.
>
> > Maybe it would be clearer with something along the lines of:
> >
> > "The calculation for the next sample window when exiting NO_HZ
> > does not handle the fact that we may not have crossed any sample
> > window during the NO_HZ period."
>
> Umm... this isn't the problem. In fact, it's the opposite.
>
> The problem is that if we *did* cross a sample window while in NO_HZ,
> then when we exit the pending window may be far enough into the future
> that all we need to do is update this_rq->calc_load_update.

Ah right. Well, see the problem statement wasn't clear to me ;-)

>
> > > If we wake from NO_HZ idle after the pending this_rq->calc_load_update
> > > window time when we want idle but before the next sample window
> >
> > That too was hard to understand. How about:
> >
> > "If we enter in NO_HZ mode after a pending this_rq->calc_load_update
> > and we exit from NO_HZ mode before the forthcoming sample window, ..."
>
> You've got this backwards again. We enter NO_HZ before the pending
> window, not after.

Right.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-02-15 17:45    [W:0.067 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site