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;) Agreed. > > -Mike >
