On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 06:17:21PM +0900, Byungchul Park wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 03:56:51PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > @@ -4645,11 +4674,11 @@ void cpu_load_update_nohz(int active)
> > void cpu_load_update_active(struct rq *this_rq)
> > {
> > unsigned long load = weighted_cpuload(cpu_of(this_rq));
> > - /*
> > - * See the mess around cpu_load_update_idle() / cpu_load_update_nohz().
> > - */
> > - this_rq->last_load_update_tick = jiffies;
> > - __cpu_load_update(this_rq, load, 1, 1);
> > +
> > + if (tick_nohz_tick_stopped())
> > + cpu_load_update_nohz(this_rq, READ_ONCE(jiffies), load);
> > + else
> > + cpu_load_update_periodic(this_rq, load);
>
> Considering it further, I wonder if needing it.
> (Sorry if I missed something.)
>
> Case 1. tickless -> (scheduler_tick) -> tickless
>
> I am not sure for this case if the rq's load can be changed or not,
> especially, if the rq's load can be changed *at this point*.
> Please remind that the load[0] is set here.
load[0] won't change because it's set by cpu_load_update_nohz_start().
But all the other load[idx] need to be decayed further.
>
> Case 2. tickless -> (scheduler_tick) -> restart tick
>
> Will be done by the tick restart routine when exiting irq.
> -> no problem.
>
> Case 3. tick -> (scheduler_tick) -> tickless
>
> Same as before.
> -> no problem.
>
> Case 4. tick -> (scheduler_tick) -> tick
>
> We can rely on regular schedule_tick().
> -> no problem.
>
Thanks for your review!
