2016-09-29 3:37 GMT+08:00 Matt Fleming <m...@codeblueprint.co.uk>: > On Wed, 28 Sep, at 12:14:22PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> >> Which suggests we do something like the below (not compile tested or >> anything, also I ran out of tea again). > > I'm away on FTO right now. I can test this when I return on Friday. > > Funnily enough, I now remember that I already sent a fix for the > missing update_rq_clock() in post_init_entity_util_avg(), but didn't > apply it when chasing this hackbench regression (oops), > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160921133813.31976-3-m...@codeblueprint.co.uk
The difference between this patch and Peterz's is your patch have a delta since activate_task()->enqueue_task() does do update_rq_clock(), so why don't have the delta will cause low cpu machines (4 or 8) to regress against your another reply in this thread? Regards, Wanpeng Li
