Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: fix the nonsense shares when load of cfs_rq is too, small | From | 王贇 <> | Date | Fri, 6 Mar 2020 12:23:22 +0800 |
| |
On 2020/3/5 下午3:53, Vincent Guittot wrote: > On Thu, 5 Mar 2020 at 02:14, 王贇 <yun.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote: [snip] >>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c >>> index fcc968669aea..6d7a9d72d742 100644 >>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c >>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c >>> @@ -3179,9 +3179,9 @@ static long calc_group_shares(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq) >>> long tg_weight, tg_shares, load, shares; >>> struct task_group *tg = cfs_rq->tg; >>> >>> - tg_shares = READ_ONCE(tg->shares); >>> + tg_shares = scale_load_down(READ_ONCE(tg->shares)); >>> >>> - load = max(scale_load_down(cfs_rq->load.weight), cfs_rq->avg.load_avg); >>> + load = max(cfs_rq->load.weight, scale_load(cfs_rq->avg.load_avg)); >>> >>> tg_weight = atomic_long_read(&tg->load_avg); >> >> Get the point, but IMHO fix scale_load_down() sounds better, to >> cover all the similar cases, let's first try that way see if it's >> working :-) > > The problem with this solution is that the avg.load_avg of gse or > cfs_rq might stay to 0 because it uses > scale_load_down(se/cfs_rq->load.weight)
Will cfs_rq->load.weight be zero too without scale down?
If cfs_rq->load.weight got at least something, the load will not be zero after pick the max, correct?
Regards, Michael Wang
> >> >> Regards, >> Michael Wang >> >>> >>> >>>
| |